The benefits of item-method-directed forgetting
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
The present experiments examined the encoding and retrieval conditions in an item-method-directed forget (IMDF) study that included a novel control condition. In the IMDF condition, half of the items were followed by a remember cue whereas the other half were followed by a forget cue. In a remember-both control condition, half of the items were followed by an item identifier called Set A; whereas the other half of the items were followed by a Set B identifier. At the test, items were recalled as a function of the instruction cue or the set identifier. Across two experiments, directed-forgetting effects and associated benefits were found. Further, results from both studies revealed a new way to demonstrate the benefit of IMDF - directed-forgetting participants made more correct source attributions compared to remember-both participants. These benefits were obtained using a within-subjects IMDF paradigm (Experiment 1) as well as a between-subjects IMDF paradigm (Experiment 2). These patterns of results are consistent with several current theories of item-method-directed forgetting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it