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 is the finding that subsequent memory is better for words that are produced than for words that are not produced. Whereas the current literature demonstrates that reading aloud is the most effective form of production, the distinctiveness account used to explain the production effect predicts that there is nothing special about reading aloud per se: Other forms of vocal production that include an additional distinct element should produce even greater subsequent memory benefits than reading aloud. To test this, we presented participants with study words that they were instructed to read aloud loudly, read aloud, or read silently (Experiment 1); sing, read aloud, or read silently (Experiment 2); and sing, read aloud loudly, read aloud, or read silently (Experiment 3). We observed that both reading items aloud loudly (Experiments 1 and 3) and singing items (Experiments 2 and 3) at study resulted in greater subsequent recognition than reading items aloud in a normal voice; singing had a larger memory benefit than reading aloud loudly (Experiment 3). Our findings support the distinctiveness hypothesis by demonstrating that there are other forms of production, such as singing and reading aloud loudly that have a more pronounced effect on memory than reading aloud.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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