Integrating Neural Embedding Models with an Instance Memory Model to Explain False Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we simulated true and false recognition in the Deese/Roediger/McDermott (DRM; Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995) paradigm by incorporating neural embeddings for words (word2vec vectors) into an instance memory model (MINERVA2). Previously, Arndt and Hirshman (1998) demonstrated that MINERVA2 (Hintzman, 1988) could capture multiple classic false recognition findings with randomly generated word representations. However, as randomized representations deviate systematically from semantic representations for words learned from the natural language environment, there remains uncertainty about whether MINERVA2 can capture the false memory illusion when scaling up to real-life complexity in word representations. To address this uncertainty, we used word2vec embeddings that are derived from large corpora of natural language instead of randomized representations in MINERVA2. Our results showed that MINERVA2 can still capture the standard true and false recognition, and it can also accommodate the true and false recognition effects of various classic manipulations (e.g., associative strength, number of associates, divided attention, retention interval).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".