‘Please, remind me…’: The role of others in prospective remembering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In a study examining the effects of reminding expectations on prospective remembering, participants were asked to perform three internally and three externally cued tasks following a 30‐minute filler activity. Experimental participants were informed that at the time for performance they were to: remind another (confederate) participant about the tasks; receive a reminder about the tasks from the confederate; or both. Control participants heard nothing about reminders. Those led to expect a reminder performed significantly fewer tasks than did those who were not, regardless of whether they were to provide a reminder. Those expecting to provide a reminder performed more tasks than did those who were not, but this difference was only marginally significant. In all conditions, significantly more externally cued than internally cued tasks were performed. Reminding expectations appear to have affected retention of the content of to‐be‐performed tasks, rather than retention of the intent to perform them. The results are discussed in terms of modifications to the activation levels of the to‐be‐performed activities and/or to participants' self‐reminding strategies as a function of reminding expectations. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".