Individual Differences in Anxiety Influence Verbal Memory Accuracy and Confidence
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
We examined the influence of encoding duration in high- and low-anxious undergraduates on memory accuracy and confidence. Participants encoded words for 750 or 4,000 ms, and later made recognition and confidence judgments in their memory for targets and lures. The high-anxious had poorer memory accuracy than the low-anxious group, and endorsed lower confidence specifically for correct memory responses. There was no differential effect of encoding time across groups, though longer encoding time benefited both accuracy and confidence. As accuracy increased so did confidence in the low-anxious group, indicating higher resolution and Gamma correlations for meta-memory judgments, though this was not the case for high-anxious individuals. Results indicate that people with high levels of anxiety have unrealistically low confidence in their memories as their confidence was a poor predictor of accuracy and allowing additional encoding time does not alleviate this effect.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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