MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082332677 · doi:10.1037/a0028466

Reassessing the basis of the production effect in memory.

2012· article· en· W2082332677 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOptimal distinctiveness theoryTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyProduction (economics)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production effect refers to a memory advantage for items studied aloud over items studied silently. Ozubko and MacLeod (2010) used a list-discrimination task to support a distinctiveness account of the production effect over a strength account. We report new findings in this task--including negative production effects--that better fit with an attributional account of this task. According to the attributional account, list judgments are influenced by recognition memory, knowledge of the composition of the 2 lists, and a bias to attribute non-recognized items to the 1st list. Using a recognition task to eliminate these attributional influences revealed production effects consistent with either a distinctiveness or strength account. In our discussion, we consider whether the absence of production effects on implicit-memory tests and in between-group designs provides unequivocal support for a distinctiveness account over a strength account.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.311 · 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