Bidirectional associations in multiplication memory: Conditions of negative and positive transfer.
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
A variety of experimental evidence indicates that the memory representation for multiplication facts (e.g., 6 x 9 = 54) incorporates bidirectional links with a forward association from factors to product and a reverse association from product to factors. Surprisingly, the authors did not find evidence in Experiment 1 of facilitative transfer-of-practice from multiplication (6 x 9 = ?) to factoring (54 = ? x ?); in fact, multiplication practice produced item-specific interference with factoring. Similarly, the authors found no evidence in Experiment 2 that repetition of specific factoring problems (54 = ? x ?) facilitated performance of corresponding multiplication problems (6 x 9 = ?). In Experiment 3, participants practiced both multiplication and factoring and presented facilitative transfer in both directions. Thus, bidirectional facilitation occurred if both operations were practiced, but interference occurred when only one operation was practiced. We propose that this seemingly paradoxical behavior occurs because it is adaptive for the bidirectional retrieval structure to retain operational flexibility in the context of practicing both operations, whereas it is adaptive to specialize the memory representation for the practiced operation (i.e., factoring or multiplication) when only one operation is practiced.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it