Recognition of categorised words: Repetition effects in rote study
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
In the recognition-memory mirror effect one stimulus class exhibits both more hits and fewer false alarms than a contrasting class. This outcome is frequently detected when strong (e.g., repeated, long-duration study) and weak items have appeared in different lists but less so within lists. The mirror effect may reflect people's assignment of a more lenient recognition criterion to the weak than the strong class. The present study asked whether a paradigm that has yielded within-list mirror effects when participants make gist ratings during study (Singer, 2009, 2011) likewise obtains in rote study. In Experiments 1 and 2 people studied words from category pairs such that the stimuli from one category only were repeated three times. Both hits and false alarms were consistently higher for the repeated than the unrepeated condition, a pattern labelled "concordant" (rather than mirror). This might reflect the either a positive "distribution shift" of the repeated-category lures or a metacognitive strategy. Experiment 3 coupled the same study procedure with two-alternative forced-choice testing (2AFC) to deny the distribution shift explanation. The sorts of strategy that might favour repeated over unrepeated lures are considered.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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