MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986495230 · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.10.001

The Isolation Effect When Offloading Memory

2019· article· en· W2986495230 on OpenAlex
Megan O. Kelly, Evan F. Risko

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMnemonicRecallIsolation (microbiology)PsychologyCognitive psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Offloading is a widespread and vital strategy for remembering. Yet, we lack a deep understanding of the mechanisms involved during the offloading of to-be-remembered information. One hypothesis is that offloading information is associated with a reduced engagement of top-down mnemonic strategies. A resulting prediction is that phenomena not solely by-products of such mechanisms should remain during offloading. We tested this prediction using the isolation effect (when recall is better for distinct items relative to nondistinct items). Participants had to remember lists of items (words) and, in most cases, were told that they could rely on an external store. On one trial, this expectation was violated, and participants had to unexpectedly rely on their internal/biological memory. Consistent with the prediction, results demonstrate a robust isolation effect irrespective of whether individuals could offload. The findings suggest that memory for distinct events is less susceptible to the typical cost of offloading to-be-remembered information.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it