MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097417747 · doi:10.1093/geronb/61.5.p278

Age Differences in Implicit Interference

2006· article· en· W2097417747 on OpenAlexaff
Simay İkier, Lynn Hasher

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series B · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsPriming (agriculture)Interference (communication)PsychologyCompetitor analysisAge groupsDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyComputer scienceDemographyBiologyMedicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed age differences in interference effects in priming by using fragment completion. In Experiment 1, noninterfering filler words preceded critical targets at study, and priming was age invariant. In Experiment 2, the same target items had interfering competitors at the beginning of the list, such that both the target and the competitor were legitimate solutions to a fragment. Having two responses to a cue was disruptive for older adults, but not for younger adults. Younger and older adults differ in their susceptibility to interference in implicit tasks, and interference may play a role in influencing the magnitude of age differences in priming.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series BSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207