MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108684125 · doi:10.1080/09658210050117708

Confidence–accuracy relations for real and suggested events

2000· article· en· W2108684125 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

VenueMemory · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisinformationPsychologyConfidence intervalRelation (database)Eyewitness memorySocial psychologyCognitive psychologyStatisticsData miningComputer scienceRecallMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participants completed a multiple item, multiple event version of a traditional misinformation procedure, as well as a battery of individual difference measures. The relation between memory accuracy and self-reported confidence was assessed through the comparison of items involving misinformation and items not involving misinformation. Selected individual differences in the confidence-accuracy relation were also examined for items that did and did not involve false post-event information. Results indicated significant differences between the measure of the confidence-accuracy relationship for misinformation and non-misinformation items. Several significant, although weak, individual difference correlates of the confidence-accuracy relations were also found.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.309
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