MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034586521 · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.131.1.96

False memory and the discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: The prototype-familiarity illusion.

2002· article· en· W2034586521 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

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology General · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyIllusionAttributionCognitive psychologyPerceptionFeelingSocial psychologyTest (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the discrepancy-attribution hypothesis (B. W. A. Whittlesea & L. D. Williams, 1998), people experience a feeling of familiarity when they perceive their processing to be surprising, but for an indefinite reason. This hypothesis has been successful in explaining several illusions of familiarity. Here, it is applied to the prototype-familiarity effect, an illusion of remembering that occurs when people are shown prototype words after studying lists of associates. The experiments showed that studying associates enhances semantic, but not perceptual, processing of prototypes. They also showed that claims of recognizing prototypes can be modified by presenting them in predictive or incongruous contexts at test. The evidence suggests that the effect results from an evaluation process that monitors the coherence of processing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.255 · 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