MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implicit Memory, Age, and Time of Day

2005· article· en· W2102917345 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on AgingU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsMorningPsychologyEveningArousalCircadian rhythmRecallCognitive psychologyChronotypeForgettingEpisodic memoryDevelopmental psychologyTime of dayImplicit memoryAudiologyCognitionSocial psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memory retrieval can occur by at least two routes: a deliberate one, as when one attempts to retrieve an event or fact, and an unintentional one, as when one's behavior is triggered by the past without one's knowledge or awareness. We assessed the efficacy of these retrieval systems as a function of circadian arousal and time of day. Evening-type younger adults and morning-type older adults were tested at either peak (morning for old; evening for young) or off-peak times on implicit and explicit stem completion (Experiment 1) or on implicit category generation (Experiment 2). Results for explicit stem-cued recall replicated better performance for each age group at its peak time. In stark contrast, implicit performance was better at off-peak than at peak times of day, raising the possibility that the processes that serve explicit and implicit retrieval are on different circadian schedules, and highlighting the need to consider individual differences in circadian arousal when assessing either memory system.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.308 · 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