Quantifying the selective forgetting and integration of ideas in science and technology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How long will this article be remembered? How long will people reference it in their conversations, and for how many years will other authors cite its findings in their own works? A community's attention to a cultural object decays as time passes, a process known as collective forgetting. Recent work models this decay as the result of two different processes. One linked to communicative memory-memories sustained by human communication-and the other linked to cultural memory-memories sustained by the physical recording of content. Collective forgetting has significant impacts on communities, yet little is known about how the collective forgetting dynamic changes over time. Here, we study the temporal changes of collective memory and attention by focusing on two knowledge communities: inventors and physicists. We use data on patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and physics papers published by the American Physical Society (APS) to quantify those changes over time. The model enables us to distinguish between two branches of forgetting. One branch is short-lived, going directly from communicative memory to oblivion. The other branch is long-lived, going from communicative memory to cultural memory before going on to oblivion. The data analysis shows an increase in the forgetting rate for both communities as the amount of information in each of them grows. That growth of information forces knowledge communities to increase their selectivity regarding what is stored in their cultural memory. These findings confirm the forgetting as annulment hypothesis and show that knowledge communities can slow down collective forgetting and improve selectivity processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 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 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 | 0.012 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".