MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203602889 · doi:10.1080/20445911.2021.1981916

Verbal overshadowing at an immediate Task-Test delay is independent of Video-Task delay

2021· article· en· W3203602889 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyEncoding (memory)Face (sociological concept)Nonverbal communicationRecognition memoryTest (biology)MemoriaCognitionDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We sought to identify the sources of effect size differences in replications of the verbal overshadowing effect: the negative effect of verbally describing a face on later recognition of the face (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990). Comparisons of the original findings with those in a registered replication report (Alogna et al., 2014) showed differences in the patterns of recognition in the criterial conditions defining the verbal overshadowing effect. The review indicates that although verbal overshadowing is strongest when the recognition task immediately follows the verbal description task, that delay variable is confounded with the delay between the encoding of the face and the verbal description task. We varied the delay between face encoding and the verbal description task under conditions where the recognition test immediately followed the description task. The verbal overshadowing effect was independent of the delay between face encoding and verbal description of the face.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.304 · 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