Parlez-vous français? Episodic and Semantic Feeling of Knowing in Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As well as memory performance, the sensations and experiences that accompany memory retrieval can beinformative regarding changes to memory that occur with aging. One such experience is the Feeling of Knowing(FOK), the sensation that an item which has failed to be recalled is nonetheless stored within the memory system,though temporarily unavailable. Older adults consistently show preserved FOK accuracy for semanticinformation. However, measures of FOK accuracy in episodic memory tasks have yielded inconsistent findings.The present study used a novel language translation paradigm to assess the effect of age on semantic andepisodic FOK judgments, and to examine the impact of repeated learning trials on episodic FOKs. As expected,no age effect was found for semantic FOK judgments. For episodic judgments, older adults’ only were found tohave chance levels of performance: FOK judgments in the older adult group were not predictive of futurememory performance. Repeated learning trials led to comparable improvements in FOK accuracy between thetwo age groups, although older adults remained at chance until after the third learning trial. Results areinterpreted within recent memory and metamemory frameworks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".