The effects of spatial contextual familiarity on remembered scenes, episodic memories, and imagined future events.
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
Several recent studies have explored the effect of contextual familiarity on remembered and imagined events. The aim of this study was to examine the extent of this effect by comparing the effect of cuing spatial memories, episodic memories, and imagined future events with spatial contextual cues of varying levels of familiarity. We used real-world landmark cues that had all been previously visited by the participants, and we measured the retrieval time, detail-richness, and vividness of remembered scenes, events, and imagined future events based on these cues. Participants consistently rated scenes and events based on more familiar cues as more detailed and more vivid, and they took less time to retrieve them. When the types of details were examined, it was revealed that the effects of increased contextual familiarity carry over to non-spatial details in the case of remembered events but possibly not in imagined events. This study provides evidence regarding how episodic memory and imagination are reliant on spatial context and possibly the process of scene construction.
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) | 0.000 | 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