MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281690066 · doi:10.1037/pag0000693

Frequency and strategicness of clock-checking explain detrimental age effects in time-based prospective memory.

2022· article· en· W4281690066 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

VenuePsychology and Aging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsInstitute of AgingUniversity of Victoria
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyModel checkingComputer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 17.24; 70% women) had to remember to push the ENTER key every 60 s while performing a two-back picture decision task. Together, relative and absolute clock-checking fully mediated the negative age effect on TBPM and explained 53.6% of the variance of TBPM performance. Complementary analyses revealed that both indicators were needed to fully mediate the effect of age on TBPM, but that strategic (i.e., relative) clock-checking was a stronger predictor of TBPM performance than absolute clock-checking. These results stress the importance of considering both aspects of clock-checking to investigate time monitoring in laboratory TBPM tasks and age effects therein, and provide avenues of intervention for improving older adults' TBPM. (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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.293 · 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