The Interaction Between the Production Effect and Serial Position in Recognition and Recall
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
In memory tasks, items read aloud are better remembered than their silently read counterparts. This production effect is often interpreted by assuming a distinctiveness benefit for produced items, but whether this benefit also comes at a cost remains up for debate. In recall tasks, when pure lists are used in which all items are produced or read silently, studies have shown a better recall of produced items at the last serial positions, but a lower recall at the first positions. This cost of production has been interpreted by assuming that production interferes with rehearsal. However, in recognition tasks, models typically assume that the distinctiveness benefit for produced items comes at no cost. Across four experiments, participants completed a 2AFC recognition test, an old-new recognition test or an immediate serial recall test. List length was also manipulated. Results show that although the production effect is larger at the last serial positions, the cross-over interaction between the production effect and serial position observed in recall was not present in recognition. These results suggest that task-related differences in the production effect may inform us about the modulation of basic memory processes by task demands.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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