MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104765809 · doi:10.1037/a0028309

Aging and the production effect: A test of the distinctiveness account.

2012· article· en· W2104765809 on OpenAlexafffund
Olivia Lin, Colin M. MacLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOptimal distinctiveness theoryRecallPsychologyProduction (economics)Cognitive psychologyEncoding (memory)Test (biology)PopulationDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production effect refers to the benefit in memory for items read aloud relative to items read silently during study. Previous research has explained this benefit as due to distinctiveness, attributable to the additional dimension of encoding for the aloud items that is later used during retrieval. We investigated the production effect in older adults, a population known to have difficulty using distinctiveness to assist remembering. Results showed a production benefit for both younger and older adults on both recall and recognition tests; however, this benefit was reliably smaller for older adults on both measures of memory. This pattern addresses both a theoretical issue and an applied issue: (1) that the role of distinctiveness is pivotal in the production effect, and (2) that production does assist older people in remembering.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations57
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207