MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060674554 · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.615

Testing Theories of Recognition Memory by Predicting Performance Across Paradigms.

2004· article· en· W2060674554 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 institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecallVariance (accounting)Two-alternative forced choicePsychologyProcess (computing)Detection theoryCognitive psychologyFlexibility (engineering)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Signal-detection theory (SDT) accounts of recognition judgments depend on the assumption that recognition decisions result from a single familiarity-based process. However, fits of a hybrid SDT model, called dual-process theory (DPT), have provided evidence for the existence of a second, recollection-based process. In 2 experiments, the authors tested predictions of DPT and SDT by comparing the invariance of parameter estimates between yes/no (Y/N) and 2-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) testing paradigms. Both experiments showed DPT recollection estimates in Y/N to be poorly correlated with recollection estimates in 2AFC. In Experiment 2, SDT predictions explained more variance than DPT predictions. The authors evaluate and discuss the extent to which each model possesses theoretical validity versus computational flexibility in curve fitting.

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)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.290 · 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