MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4255368035 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/7y6z9

Memories of structured input become increasingly distorted across development - Working Paper

2021· preprint· en· W4255368035 on OpenAlexafffund
Tess Allegra Forest, Zahra Abolghasem, Amy S. Finn, Margaret L. Schlichting

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyCognitionMemory developmentCognitive developmentCognitive psychologyChildhood memoryEpisodic memoryAssociative propertySequence (biology)Neuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trajectories of cognitive and neural development suggest that, despite its early developmental emergence, the ability to extract patterns from the environment changes across childhood. Here, 5-9-year-olds and adults (N=211, 110 female) completed a memory test to assess what they remembered after structured exposure to a stream of shape triplets: the particular sequence in which the shapes occurred, their group-level structure, or both? After accounting for developmental improvements in overall memory, all ages were sensitive to specific transitions, while order-independent group memory was only observed in older children and adults. Thus, while young children form memories for specifics of structured experience, memory for associative gist is refined later—underscoring that adults and young children form different memories despite identical experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMemory and Neural Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→