MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011438172 · doi:10.1037/a0030955

The six R's of remembering.

2013· article· en· W2011438172 on OpenAlexafffund
Colin M. MacLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRecallCognitive psychologyPsychologySet (abstract data type)Reconstructive memoryEpisodic memoryMemory errorsMnemonicEvent (particle physics)ForgettingEncoding (memory)Cognitive sciencePrivilege (computing)Human memoryCognitionComputer scienceChildhood memoryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although complex and multifaceted, memory can be distilled into a small set of very fundamental principles—the six R’s of memory. The first is recoding, whereby what is actually experienced is transformed on its way into memory with the goal of establishing associations that enrich memory. The second is rehearsal, whereby what has been experienced (and likely recoded) is reviewed with the goal of strengthening memory. The third is relearning, whereby memory is enhanced by reexperiencing, without the necessity of awareness. The fourth is reminding, whereby the encoding of an event invokes the memory of a related previous event, which in turn benefits remembering. The fifth is retrieval, whereby what has already entered memory is recollected, typically with the goal of responding but also with significant implications for subsequent remembering. The sixth is reconstruction, whereby the components of episodes are assembled for the purpose of recollection and where the use of schemata and associations alters memory. Together, these six processes capture much of the richness and power of memory.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.024
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207