MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047536147 · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.4.891

The Perception of Integrality: Remembering Through the Validation of Expectation.

2004· article· en· W2047536147 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 Learning Memory and Cognition · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentencePerceptionCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)PsychologyStimulus (psychology)Cognitive psychologyEncoding (memory)Social psychologyNatural language processingComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five experiments investigated the role of sentence context in influencing recognition decisions. Sentence stems were presented only in the study phase, only in the test phase, or in both; in addition, the coherence of the sentences was varied, such that terminal words were highly constrained by, merely consistent with, or actually incongruous with their stems. These stimulus combinations produced 4 unique patterns of response. These patterns are difficult to explain through encoding and retrieval alone; they seem also to require an understanding of the principles by which people react subjectively to their own processing. The results are discussed in terms of the differential effects of definite expectations developed in past experiences versus indefinite expectations developed in the moment of remembering.

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)0.000
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.308 · 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