MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2219289083 · doi:10.1177/0963721415573203

Retrieval-Induced Forgetting and Context

2015· article· en· W2219289083 on OpenAlexafffund
Tanya R. Jonker, Paul Seli, Colin M. MacLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Directions in Psychological Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsForgettingRetrieval-induced forgettingContext (archaeology)PsychologyCognitive psychologyMotivated forgettingContext-dependent memoryNegative informationPhenomenonEpistemologyRecallHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retrieving information can result in the forgetting of related information, a phenomenon referred to as retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF). To date, the dominant explanation of RIF has been an inhibition account, which emphasizes long-term suppression of interfering memories. As one alternative, some have advocated for a strength-based interference account, which emphasizes the role of strengthening associations. More recently, we have proposed a context account, which emphasizes the role of context change and context reinstatement. In this article, we outline these three accounts of RIF and demonstrate that there is substantial evidence that uniquely supports our context account.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Directions in Psychological ScienceSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207