Memoir Dataset: Quantifying Image Memorability in Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work shows that images differ in terms of their memorability, some stick in one's mind while others are forgotten quickly, and this phenomenon is consistent across observers. Previous research agrees that memorability is an intrinsic, continuous property of a stimulus that can be both measured and manipulated, however; this work has been limited to adults.In this study, we attempted to quantify image memorability in adolescents (11-18 years old) and determine if it differs from image memorability in adults.We selected images from the MemCat data set that are annotated with adult memorability scores. By running a visual memory game online, we quantified these images on their memorability in adolescents, and compared them to the adult scores. Our study finds that memorability rankings in adolescents and adults are strongly and significantly correlated. Moreover, the rankings of memorability by image category were also identical in both age groups, indicating that certain image categories are more consistently memorable for both adults and adolescents.Collectively, our results support previous research that suggests memorability is an intrinsic property of images that is consistent across viewers even with different developmental stages.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".