MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200514761 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/2msk9

Frequency and Strategicness of Clock-Checking Explain Detrimental Age-Effects in Time-Based Prospective Memory

2021· preprint· en· W4200514761 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

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsInstitute of AgingUniversity of Victoria
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsProspective memoryPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Variance (accounting)EconomicsNeuroscienceCognitionAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies report that checking a clock either frequently or strategically (immediately before a target-time) improves the likelihood of remembering to perform a planned intention at a specific time (time-based prospective memory, TBPM). To disentangle the respective contribution of frequent vs. strategic clock-checking to age-related decrease in TBPM performance, we propose a new, more fine-grained indicator of strategicness. Together, both aspects of clock-checking fully mediated the negative age effect on TBPM performance and explained 54.6% of the variance of TBPM performance in an adult lifespan sample (N=221, age-range = 19-86), thereby providing avenues of intervention for improving older adults’ TBPM.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Functions and MemoryFrench-language works237,207