Memory biases in gymnastic judging: differential effects of surface feature changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An Erratum has been published for this article in Applied Cognitive Psychology 18 (3) 2004, 371. Three experiments examined whether changes in stimuli features would affect the pattern of memory biases reported by Ste‐Marie and colleagues ( 1991 , 1996 , 2001 ). Experiment 1 served as a replication of Ste‐Marie and colleagues' findings with new stimuli. In Experiments 2 and 3, surface features of the gymnastic stimuli were altered from that presented in the study phase for both perceptual (implicit memory test) and recognition test (explicit memory test) phases. In Experi‐ment 2, the bodysuit that was worn by the gymnast was changed between the study phase and test phase presentation, whereas it was the gymnast who performed the gymnastic element that was changed in Experiment 3. Memory biases were still evident, despite the stimulus feature change of the bodysuit. In contrast, memory biases were significantly reduced when there was a change in the gymnast performing the element. Discussion is focused on the activation of memory representations underlying these effects and the nature of task relevance for memory biases in gymnastic judging. In addition, specific recommendations for the gymnastic competition setting are included as the findings suggest that judges' objectivity can be compromised by these memory biases. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".