Applying an exemplar model to an implicit rule-learning task: Implicit learning of semantic structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of implicit learning often examine peoples' sensitivity to sequential structure. Computational accounts have evolved to reflect this bias. An experiment conducted by Neil and Higham [Neil, G. J., & Higham, P. A.(2012). Implicit learning of conjunctive rule sets: An alternative to artificial grammars. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1393-1400] points to limitations in the sequential approach. In the experiment, participants studied words selected according to a conjunctive rule. At test, participants discriminated rule-consistent from rule-violating words but could not verbalize the rule. Although the data elude explanation by sequential models, an exemplar model of implicit learning can explain them. To make the case, we simulate the full pattern of results by incorporating vector representations for the words used in the experiment, derived from the large-scale semantic space models LSA and BEAGLE, into an exemplar model of memory, MINERVA 2. We show that basic memory processes in a classic model of memory capture implicit learning of non-sequential rules, provided that stimuli are appropriately represented.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".