Prevention Education Effects on Fundamental Memory Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated effects of a key session from a nationally recognized drug abuse prevention program on basic memory processes in 211 high-risk youth in Southern California. In a randomized, between-subject design, the authors manipulated assignment to a Myth and Denial program session and the time of assessment (immediate vs. 1-week delay). The authors examined program decay effects on memory accessibility and judgment errors. Those participants exposed to the program session generated more myths and facts from the program than those in the control group, suggesting that even a single program session influenced students' memory for program information and this was retained at least 1 week and detectable with indirect tests of memory accessibility. However, consistent with basic research perspectives, participants in the program-delayed assessment group erroneously generated more fact-related information from the session to the prompt "It is a myth that_____" than the participants in the program immediate assessment group; that is, they retained more facts as myths. These types of program effects, anticipated by basic memory theory, were not detected with a traditional judgment task in the present sample. The results suggest that basic science approaches offer a novel way of conceptually recasting prevention effects to more completely understand how these effects may operate. Implications for program evaluation and conceptualization are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".