Associations Compete Directly in Memory
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
Associations are confusable when they share an item. For example, double-function pairs (with the form AB, BC) are harder to remember than control pairs. Although ambiguous pairs are more difficult on average, it is not clear whether memories for associations compete directly with one another (associative competition hypothesis), as assumed by models that incorporate associative symmetry (bidirectional associations). Alternatively, associative interference results might be explained away by: (a) item suppression hypothesis: competition only between memory for the two target items (A and C are both targets of B); (b) candidate competition hypothesis: The cue (B) retrieves two potential targets, A and C, which compete to be output. These alternative hypotheses could explain previous results in the related, AB/AC learning procedure. Our procedure included a large amount of interference that had to be resolved within a single study set. Participants studied sets of control (single-function) and double-function pairs and were asked to produce one or two associates, respectively, to cue items. Recall of AB and BC were negatively correlated and could not be explained away by item suppression or competition between simultaneously retrieved candidate items. Thus, competition can occur at the level of representation of associations, regardless of which item is the cue, consistent with associative symmetry.
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) | 0.001 | 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