MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Directed Forgetting

2015· other· en· W4206968465 on OpenAlexaff
Sara N. Gallant, Lixia Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Encyclopedia of Adulthood and Aging · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForgettingMotivated forgettingRetrieval-induced forgettingComputer scienceCognitive psychologyCued speechPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The benefit of forgetting lies in its ability to reduce clutter in memory by removing information that is no longer relevant. In the laboratory, forgetting can be experimentally induced using the directed forgetting paradigm, for which there are two versions: the item‐based and list‐based methods. Both tasks have been shown to be effective in producing the directed forgetting effect, operationally defined as greater memory for items cued as to‐be‐remembered relative to those cued as to‐be‐forgotten. This entry reviews the methods and theory of directed forgetting, as well as how the ability to engage in directed forgetting changes as a function of normal aging.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Encyclopedia of Adulthood and AgingSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207