MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401766787 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/jp7gu

Beyond routine maintenance: Current trends in working memory research

2024· preprint· en· W4401766787 on OpenAlexaff
Kirsten Adam, Laura‐Isabelle Klatt, Jacob R. Miller, Marlene Rösner, Keisuke Fukuda, Anastasia Kiyonaga

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurrent (fluid)Computer scienceData scienceEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Working memory is an evolving concept. Our understanding of the neural functions that support WM develops iteratively alongside the approaches used to study it, and both can be profoundly shaped by available tools and prevailing theoretical paradigms. Here, the organizers of the 2024 Working Memory Symposium – inspired by this year’s meeting – highlight current trends and looming questions in working memory research.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.023
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207