MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325258169 · doi:10.1037/a0033263

Does aging affect recall more than recognition memory?

2013· article· en· W2325258169 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Aging · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRecallPsychologyAffect (linguistics)CognitionRecognition memoryCognitive psychologyMemoriaDevelopmental psychologyCognitive agingNeuroscienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although it is generally agreed that recall performance declines more than recognition memory performance in the course of normal aging, there are some dissenting voices. There are also a few empirical findings that cast doubt on that conclusion. In light of these ambiguities the present experiments were designed to answer the question in a more definitive fashion. Over a series of 3 experiments, groups of younger and older adults performed recall and recognition tests successively on the same lists of words. Several analyses of the resulting data converge on the conclusion that there is a consistent age-related decrement in recall that is disproportionately greater than the age-related decrement in recognition. This conclusion is in line with several theoretical accounts of age-related differences in cognitive processing and also with emerging evidence from cognitive neuroscience.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.288 · 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