MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074653138 · doi:10.1037/h0087397

Age, time of testing, and proactive interference.

2002· article· en· W2074653138 on OpenAlexaff
Lynn Hasher, Christie Chung, Cynthia P. May, Natalie Foong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on AgingU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsMorningEveningInterference theoryPsychologyIntrusionRecallAudiologyYoung adultDevelopmental psychologyInterference (communication)CognitionWorking memoryCognitive psychologyMedicineTelecommunicationsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A four-list version of a release from proactive interference paradigm was used to assess the degree to which older and younger adults tested at optimal and nonoptimal times of day are vulnerable to interference effects in memory, effects that may increase at nonoptimal times. Morning type older adults and Evening type younger adults were tested either early in the morning or late in the afternoon. Standard buildup and release effects were shown for all age groups except for older adults tested in the afternoon; they failed to show release. Recall and intrusion data suggested that older adults are more vulnerable to proactive interference than younger adults and that for older adults at least, interference effects are heightened at nonoptimal times of day. The data are discussed in terms of an inhibitory model of control over the contents of working memory (Hasher, Zacks, & May, 1999).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations128
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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