MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004576368 · doi:10.1080/09658211.2012.693510

Interplay of the production and picture superiority effects: A signal detection analysis

2012· article· en· W2004576368 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMemory · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyReferentCognitive psychologyStimulus (psychology)Discriminative modelEngramProduction (economics)CommunicationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three experiments explored the interaction between the production effect (greater memory for produced compared to non-produced study items) and the picture superiority effect (greater memory for pictures compared to words). Pictures and words were presented in a blocked (E1) or mixed (E2, E3) design, each accompanied by an instruction to silently name (non-produced condition) or quietly mouth (produced condition) the corresponding referent. Memory was then tested for all study items as well as an equal number of foil items using a speeded (E1, E2) or self-paced (E3) yes-no recognition task. Experiments 1, 2, and 3 all revealed a small but reliable production × stimulus interaction. Production was also found to result in a liberal shift in response bias that could result in the overestimation of the production effect when measured using hits instead of sensitivity. Together our findings suggest that the application of multiple distinctive processes at study produces an especially discriminative memory trace at test, more so than the summation of each process individually.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it