Production as a distinctive contextual cue for retrieving intentionally forgotten information.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The production effect-the memory benefit for information studied aloud as opposed to silently-has been credited to the distinctive processing of the aloud information. Could the production effect be characterized more broadly as a context-based memory effect? At encoding, the distinctive "aloud" information could create a global contextual cue that becomes associated with only the produced information. This cue could then be elicited at retrieval to facilitate memory for the produced information. To test this idea, a mixed-list production effect manipulation was combined with a list-method directed forgetting procedure. According to the contextual change account of list-method directed forgetting, when the first of two lists is to be forgotten, that list is poorly remembered later due to the mental context change between the lists, which causes the context of the second list to better match the test context. Reinstating the relevant contextual cues, therefore, improves memory for the to-be-forgotten list. Our results showed that reading aloud did indeed function as contextual information: Reactivating this production information at retrieval enhanced memory only for aloud items-and not for silent items-from the to-be-forgotten list. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".