Going shopping and identifying landmarks: does collaboration improve older people's 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
Abstract Older participants (mean age = 72.82 years) attempted to recall items from shopping lists while shopping in a supermarket and subsequently in their homes on recognition tests. They also attempted to identify local landmarks on a map. The recall occurred either together with their spouses or independently. Collaborative recall was compared to the pooled, nonredundant recall of spouses who completed the memory tasks alone (nominal groups). Nominal groups produced more hits on most measures and never fewer hits than did collaborative groups. However, collaborative groups consistently generated fewer memory errors than did nominal groups. In many everyday contexts, a tendency for collaboration to reduce false recall could be advantageous to older people. Signal detection analyses revealed that collaboration leads couples to require a higher level of certainty before they are willing to claim that they recognize an item. Finally, we examined the relation between expertise and recall in the shopping and landmark tasks. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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