Directed forgetting meets the production effect: Distinctive processing is resistant to intentional forgetting.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The production effect refers to the fact that, relative to reading a word silently, reading a word aloud during study improves explicit memory. The authors tested the distinctiveness account of this effect using the item method directed forgetting procedure. If saying words aloud makes them more distinctive, then they should be more difficult to forget on cue than should words read silently. Participants studied a list of words by reading half aloud and half silently; half of the words in each of these subsets were followed by a Remember instruction and half were followed by a Forget instruction. There was a robust production effect for both Remember and Forget words on an explicit recognition test. Critically, however, a directed forgetting effect was observed only for words read silently; words read aloud at study were unaffected by memory instruction. An implicit speeded reading test showed equal priming for all studied items. This pattern supports a distinctiveness account of the production effect: Words processed distinctively during production are not influenced by subsequent rehearsal differences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it