Does the Effect of Production Influence Memory for Background Context?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined whether the benefit of mixed-list production could extend to memory for background contexts using word-background context pairs. Participants studied words presented on background images; words were read aloud or silently. In Experiment 1a, half of the studied items were tested on their studied background image and half were tested on a new image using old-new recognition. Although a production effect in word recognition was observed, context reinstatement had no effect on sensitivity and only a marginal effect on hit rates; it did not interact with production. In Experiment 1b, whether participants encoded the backgrounds and whether that encoding was affected by production was tested using separate recognition tests. A production effect was found in word recognition, but there was no effect in image recognition. Experiment 2 used a cued-recall test, with the studied background images as the cues to directly test whether associations were formed between words and backgrounds at study. A production effect was found but did not interact with the presence of cues during recall. Both the benefit of production and the benefit of context reinstatement appear to be independent of one another, with production not aiding memory for the associations between items nor the context.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".