Failures to replicate hyper-retrieval-induced forgetting in arithmetic memory.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Campbell and Phenix (2009) observed retrieval-induced forgetting (slower response time) for simple addition facts (e.g., 3 + 4) immediately following 40 retrieval-practice blocks of their multiplication counterparts (3 × 4 = ?). A subsequent single retrieval of the previously unpracticed multiplication problems, however, produced an retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) effect about twice as large for their addition counterparts. Thus, a single retrieval of a multiplication fact appeared to produce much larger RIF of the addition counterpart than did many multiplication retrieval-practice trials. In several subsequent similar studies, however, we failed to observe this hyper-RIF effect. Here, we attempted an exact replication of the Campbell and Phenix experiment, but found no evidence of hyper-RIF. We conclude that the hyper-RIF effect reported by Campbell and Phenix is an elusive phenomenon; consequently, it cannot at this time be considered an important result in the RIF literature.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".