Item-based directed forgetting for categorized lists: Forgetting of words that were not presented.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of item-based directed forgetting (DF) on recognition memory for categorized word lists was examined. For half of the categories, all studied exemplars were followed by a remember cue; for the other half of the categories, all studied exemplars were followed by a forget cue. In Experiment 1, a 2-alternative forced-choice recognition test showed decreased recognition for to-be-forgotten items. This effect was seen both when the distractor was from the same category as the target requiring discrimination be based on memory for the specific studied exemplars (exemplar test condition) and when the distractor was from a novel category and discrimination could be based on memory for the studied categories (category test condition). In Experiment 2, a yes-no recognition test showed a DF effect not only in higher hit rates for remember-cued targets compared to forget-cued targets, but also in higher false alarm rates for new exemplars from remember-cued compared to forget-cued categories. The effects of intentional forgetting of categorized word lists are seen not only for the studied exemplars but also for the studied categories and the unstudied typical exemplars of these categories. These results pose a theoretical challenge for the attentional inhibition account of DF. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".