Hyper-binding only apparent under fully implicit test conditions.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have previously shown that older adults hyper-bind, or form more extraneous associations than younger adults. For instance, when asked to perform a 1-back task on pictures superimposed with distracting words, older adults inadvertently form associations between target-distractor pairs and implicitly transfer these associations to a later paired associate learning task (showing a boost in relearning of preserved over disrupted pairs). We have argued that younger adults are better at suppressing the distracting words and thus, do not form these extraneous associations in the first place. However, an alternative explanation is that younger adults simply fail to access these associations during relearning, possibly because of their superior ability to form boundaries between episodes or shift mental contexts between tasks. In this study, we aimed to both replicate this original implicit transfer effect in older adults and to test whether younger adults show evidence of hyper-binding when informed about the relevance of past information. Our results suggest that regardless of the test conditions, younger adults do not hyper-bind. In contrast, older adults showed hyper-binding under (standard) implicit instructions, but not when made aware of a connection between tasks. These results replicate the original hyper-binding effect and reiterate its implicit nature. (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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it