Transfer appropriate processing for prospective memory tests
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
Abstract Transfer appropriate processing (TAP) is the assumption that retrospective memory test performance reflects the overlap between study and test phase processing. In a task analysis, we identify a similar sequential‐type of processing overlap in prospective memory (ProM) situations. In addition, ProM test performance can also involve a concurrent overlap between processes engaged for an ongoing task and those required for recognizing relevant cues. A review of the ProM literature shows consistent TAP effects due to sequential processing overlap manipulations, but inconclusive findings for concurrent processing overlap manipulations. We examined the latter in a new experiment with young adult participants. The ongoing task required either semantic or perceptual processing of words, and the ProM task required either semantic or perceptual processing of words. Consistent with TAP, performance was higher when the ongoing task and the ProM task required the same kind of processing (i.e. semantic–semantic, perceptual–perceptual) rather than different kinds of processing (i.e. semantic–perceptual, perceptual–semantic). 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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