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
Improvements in 5- and 7-year-olds' acquisition and retention of related concept pairings were examined when additional similarities and differences between pair members were provided. Using a standard paired-associate learning paradigm, children learned 18 related picture pairs; some of the children either were given or produced additional similarities or differences between pair members at the time of learning. Three weeks after learning was complete, children attempted to recall the pairs. Using a model to determine the storage and retrieval loci of these effects, the results showed that (a) all children benefited from self-generated elaborations, regardless of whether these were similarities or differences, and these benefits were storage related, and (b) difference elaborations improved children's retention regardless of whether they were self- or experimenter-generated, and these effects were primarily retrieval based. These results are consistent with theories that (a) view retrieval as the locus of distinctiveness effects and (b) view storage as the locus of self-generated memory improvements.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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