MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036316478 · doi:10.1080/13825585.2020.1782827

Implicit associative memory remains intact with age and extends to target-distractor pairs

2020· article· en· W3036316478 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily E. Davis, Ethan A. Foy, Kelly S. Giovanello, Karen L. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueAging Neuropsychology and Cognition · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCategorizationAssociative propertyObject (grammar)PsychologyContent-addressable memoryEncoding (memory)Cognitive psychologyTest (biology)Block (permutation group theory)Episodic memoryCommunicationCognitionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsCombinatoricsNeuroscienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

, or older adults' tendency to form non-target associations. Participants viewed pictures of objects superimposed with text and made speeded categorization judgments about the objects across three blocks varying in binding demand. During the no- and some-binding blocks, participants decided if the pictured object alone could fit inside a drawer while ignoring superimposed non-words and words, respectively. During the full-binding block, participants decided if both items could fit inside a drawer together. At test, participants viewed intact and rearranged pairs from encoding and decided if both items could fit in a drawer together. Across two experiments, older adults responded faster to intact than rearranged pairs from both the some- and full-binding blocks, while young adults showed no difference in RTs. These findings suggest that implicit associative memory is preserved with age and extends to non-target 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging Neuropsychology and CognitionSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207