Evaluating the basis of the between-group production effect in recognition.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reading a list of words aloud can improve recognition over silently reading them. This between-groups production effect (PE) cannot be due to relative distinctiveness because each group studies only 1 type of item. We tested 2 other possibilities. By a strategy account, a pure-aloud group might benefit from use of a production-based distinctiveness strategy at test (e.g., "Did I say this word aloud?"). By a strength account, aloud items may simply be more strongly encoded than silent items. To evaluate these accounts, we tested whether a between-group PE occurs when participants experience a salient within-group manipulation of font size, generation, or imagery at study. The answer was yes, except when imagery was the within-group task. This pattern, and aspects of participants' strategy reports, fit well with a strategy account if it is assumed that the imagery task led participants to abandon a production-based strategy. However, many of our findings were also compatible with an evaluated strength account if it is assumed that the imagery task led participants to abandon evaluating memory strength. In conjunction with recent findings, we suggest that multiple processes may contribute to the PE, and the relevant subset in play will differ as a function of study design, study task, and memory test. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".