MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130394405 · doi:10.1080/09658210050117753

Conscious and unconscious influences of memory: Temporal dynamics

2000· article· en· W2130394405 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 institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnconscious mindPsychologyForgettingDissociation (chemistry)Contrast (vision)ConsciousnessCognitive psychologyImplicit memoryDevelopmental psychologyCognitionPsychoanalysisNeuroscienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in the conscious and unconscious influences of memory over time were assessed in two experiments by using a variant of the process-dissociation procedure. In both experiments, performance on a stem-completion task was measured under both inclusion and exclusion instructions. Across the two experiments, there were four different retention intervals: 2 minutes, 2 days, 2 weeks, and 2 months. The results indicated that conscious influences decreased systematically across retention interval. In contrast, unconscious influences of memory in the absence of conscious influences increased between 2 minutes and 2 days, and then remained relatively stable from 2 days to 2 weeks to 2 months. These results stand in apparent contrast to those of McBride and Dosher (1999), which showed equal rates of forgetting for conscious and unconscious influences of memory on performance. The implications for models of the relation between conscious and unconscious influences of memory on performance are discussed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.240 · 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