Exploring the Dynamic Nature of Contextual Interference: Previous Experience Affects Current Practice But Not Learning
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
There is evidence that the learning benefits of contextual interference (CI) are moderated by experience, yet we do not know if these experiences are related to specific practice with random schedules. In two experiments, CI practice schedule was manipulated on Day 1. We evaluated its impact on 3 new tasks on Day 2; in the same or different practice schedule (Experiment 1) or when participants chose their practice (Experiment 2). Typical CI effects were observed for both sets of tasks, although on Day 2, there were no longer any costs from random practice. Previous practice affected how practice was scheduled. The prior random group switched more than the prior blocked group. Although switching was related to retention, overall the groups did not differ. Therefore, specific experiences with a method of practice influence later choices about how to practice, performance in practice, but not necessarily what is retained.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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