The longer we have to forget the more we remember: The ironic effect of postcue duration in item-based directed 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 effects of the duration of remember and forget cues were examined to test the differential rehearsal account of item-based directed forgetting. In Experiments 1 and 2, cues were shown for 300, 600, or 900 ms, and a directed forgetting effect (better recognition of remember than forget items) was found at each duration. In addition, recognition of both remember and forget items increased with cue duration. These 2 effects did not interact. The results of Experiment 2 further showed that memory for the cue associated with the study items increased with cue duration as well. The results of Experiment 1 were replicated in Experiment 3 for cue durations of 1, 2, and 3 s. Finally, a similar pattern of results was found for cue durations of 2, 4, and 6 s for associative recognition of random word pairs. If subjects cannot immediately terminate the processing of forget items, the lingering processing of these items is as beneficial as the continued processing of remember items. Alternatively, subjects may use inefficient or counterproductive strategies that ironically improve memory for the information they wish to forget.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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