MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071260022 · doi:10.1037/a0021998

Further evidence that similar principles govern recall from episodic and semantic memory: The Canadian prime ministerial serial position function.

2011· article· en· W2071260022 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ian Neath, Jean Saint‐Aubin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSerial position effectOptimal distinctiveness theoryEpisodic memoryRecallSemantic memoryCognitive psychologyReconstructive memoryPsychologyFunction (biology)PerceptionFree recallExplicit memoryCognitionSocial psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The serial position function, with its characteristic primacy and recency effects, is one of the most ubiquitous findings in episodic memory tasks. In contrast, there are only two demonstrations of such functions in tasks thought to tap semantic memory. Here, we provide a third demonstration, showing that free recall of the prime ministers of Canada also results in a serial position function. Scale Independent Memory, Perception, and Learning (SIMPLE), a local distinctiveness model of memory that was designed to account for serial position effects in episodic memory, fit the data. According to SIMPLE, serial position functions observed in episodic and semantic memory all reflect the relative distinctiveness principle: items will be well remembered to the extent that they are more distinct than competing items at the time of retrieval. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.143 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207