Forgetting Numbers in Old Age: Strategy and Learning Speed Matter
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
BACKGROUND: Memory intervention research with older adults has primarily focused on immediate effects of training. Little is known about whether memory training can prevent forgetting of a learned material over time. OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of memory training on forgetting of numerical information in old age. In addition, the effect of speed of learning on forgetting rate was examined. METHODS: Two training programs were employed contrasting a number-consonant mnemonic strategy with a self-generated strategy. A non-practice control group was also included. There were 20 participants in each group (age range=60-83 years). Following completion of training, participants memorized six 4-digit numbers to perfection. Retention was tested after 30 min, 24 h, 7 weeks, and 8 months. RESULTS: The three groups showed equal rates of forgetting across the first two follow-up assessments. A different picture emerged for the last two occasions, with the self-generated strategy group remembering more items relative to the two other groups. Moreover, participants reaching the criterion in few trials exhibited less forgetting than slow learners. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that self-generated strategy training may have advantages over learning a classical mnemonic for preventing long-term forgetting of numeric materials in old age.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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