Context effects in explanation evaluation - eScholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Does Narrative Transportation Facilitate Memory for Counterintuitive Concepts? M. Afzal Upal Leader of Effects & Influence Research Group Defence R & D Canada Toronto Abstract: A series of studies carried out over the last two decades have shown that those people who allow themselves to be immersed in a story are more likely to experience its persuasive effects (Green, Sasota & Jones 2010). A number of studies carried out by cognitive scientists of religion have shown that people better remember counterintuitive ideas embedded in stories (Upal et al. 2007). This paper reports on a study carried out to test the hypothesis that narrative transportation facilitates memory for counterintuitive concepts i.e., more someone is transported into a story, the better memory they will have for counterintuitive concepts embedded in the story. Participants read 3 stories (each containing 6 counterintuitive concepts) with different narrative transportation levels and completed the narrative transportation scale. Responses were coded for recall. The results were mixed with the transportation facilitating recall but only for concepts that were critical to the story plot.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".