Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, several researchers have proposed that skilled adults may solve single-digit addition problems (e.g., 3 + 1 = 4, 4 + 3 = 7) using a fast counting procedure. Practicing a procedure often leads to transfer of learning and faster performance of unpracticed items. Such transfer has been demonstrated using a counting-based alphabet arithmetic task (e.g., B + 4 = C D E F) that indicated robust generalization of practice (i.e., response time [RT] gains) when untrained transfer problems at test had been implicitly practiced (e.g., practice B + 3, test B + 2 or B + 1). Here, we constructed analogous simple addition problems (practice 4 + 3, test 4 + 2 or 4 + 1). In each of three experiments (total n = 108), participants received six practice blocks followed by two test blocks of new problems to examine generalization effects. Practice of addition identity rule problems (i.e., 0 + N = N) showed complete transfer of RT gains made during practice to unpracticed items at test. In contrast, the addition ties (2 + 2, 3 + 3, etc.) presented large RT costs for unpracticed problems at test, but sped up substantially in the second test block. This pattern is consistent with item-specific strengthening of associative memory. The critical items were small non-tie additions (sum ≤ 10) for which the test problems would be implicitly practiced if counting was employed during practice. In all three experiments (and collectively), there was no evidence of generalization for these items in the first test block, but there was robust speed up when the items were repeated in the second test block. Thus, there was no evidence of the generalization of practice that would be expected if counting procedures mediated our participants' performance on small non-tie addition problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".