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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curiosity is a motivational state characterized by the desire to obtain knowledge. Prior research suggests that metacognitive experiences during unsuccessful memory recall may induce curiosity. Specifically, feeling-of-knowing (FOK) experiences have been associated with increased subsequent information-seeking behaviour for inaccessible information. Here, we further investigated this relationship by focusing on subjective experiences of curiosity and reward. Our paradigm required learning of face-name associations followed by probing of name recall and FOK experiences on unsuccessful trials. Subsequently, participants rated their curiosity (Experiment 1) or made information-seeking choices and rated their satisfaction upon completion (Experiment 2). Results showed, as predicted, that FOK experiences correlate with subjective ratings of curiosity as well as information-seeking choices. Critically, we found they are also positively correlated with satisfaction reported upon exposure to sought information. These correlational findings converge to suggest that unsuccessful memory recall shapes subsequent information seeking behaviour through a combination of metacognitive and reward-based mechanisms.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 it