Трансграничное сотрудничество России и Монголии: охраняемые природные территории и экотуризм
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using an item-method directed forgetting task, we presented negative, neutral, and positive photographic pictures, one at a time, each followed by an instruction to remember or forget. We determined that the directed forgetting effect, defined as better subsequent recognition of to-be-remembered (TBR) items than to-be-forgotten (TBF) items, was equivalent across negative, neutral, and positive pictures. To disentangle the underlying costs (i.e., decrease in memory for TBF items) and benefits (i.e., increase in memory for TBR items), we compared recognition memory performance in the directed forgetting task to that of a novel within-subjects remember-all control condition (Experiment 1) and to a between-subjects remember-all control group (Experiment 2). We observed costs without benefits across all three emotions-negative, neutral, and positive-in both experiments. These results demonstrate that equivalent directed forgetting effects for emotional stimuli are not attributable to different underlying component processes. Instead, our results suggest that selection for encoding is accomplished in similar ways, regardless of emotional content.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".