When does memory monitoring succeed versus fail? Comparing item-specific and relational encoding in the DRM paradigm.
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 compared the effects of item-specific versus relational encoding on recognition memory in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm. In Experiment 1, we directly compared item-specific and relational encoding instructions, whereas in Experiments 2 and 3 we biased pleasantness and generation tasks, respectively, toward one or the other type of processing. A read condition was tested in each experiment for comparison purposes. Across experiments, item-specific and relational encoding both boosted correct recognition relative to reading, but only item-specific encoding typically reduced false recognition. Signal-detection measures revealed that less information was encoded about critical items after item-specific than after relational encoding. In contrast, item-specific and relational encoding led to equivalent increases in strategic monitoring at test (e.g., use of a distinctiveness heuristic). Thus, monitoring at test was less successful after relational than item-specific encoding because more information had been encoded about critical lures.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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