Investigation a memory-based account of negative priming: Support for selection-feature mismatch.
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
Using typical and modified negative priming tasks, the selection-feature mismatch account of negative priming was tested. In the modified task, participants performed selections on the basis of a semantic feature (e.g., referent size). This procedure has been shown to enhance negative priming (P. A. MacDonald, S. Joordens, & K. N. Seergobin, 1999). Across 3 experiments, negative priming occurred only when the repeated item mismatched in terms of the feature used as the basis for selections. When the repeated item was congruent on the selection feature across the prime and probe displays, positive priming arose. This pattern of results appeared in both the ignored- and the attended-repetition conditions. Negative priming does not result from previously ignoring an item. These findings strongly support the selection-feature mismatch account of negative priming and refute both the distractor inhibition and the episodic-retrieval explanations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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