I wonder is there a consistent interpretation of mnemosyne gathered data possible. Has anybody analysed it and what assumptions do you make and how do you filter of "wrong data" from "regular ones". Or if not, how do you try to account for presence of some unexpected use patters.
With "wrong data" I mean the recall data that does not follow from "normal use" of mnemosyne. I feel myself I'm creating two kinds of "wrong data" (so I've disabled the log upload :-). One kind is: 1) I'm doing a course and using associated wordlists, then 2) I take another course, create new wordlists 3) some of the words overlap. So either a) I continue using the old lists so getting some words that gets acquired 2x as quick as they are listed in two lists b) switch to the new list completely - still some words get learned pretty quick as they were already part of know vocabulary 4) some time later I repeat the first course and so activate the corresponding worlist. Now words that I have enforced through the second course stay miraculously learned after many montsh of pause; some that were not present in the 2nd wordlist fall down on level 1 - even if afterwards I pick them up pretty quick again Well I guess this first type could be resumed as influence of "duplicate entries". I have them a lot - mostly for the reason the I keep the wordlists matching the courses. The other type is - I have struggled with with inverse entries. The way I would prefer to do it is to study about "Assimil" style - where you get 1st "passive" wave and you start second "active" wave after you have completed half of the course in "passive mode". Translating this to inverse entries, I would not like to learn them until well later at "second wave" - maybe weeks or months since the first introduction. However with mnemosyne I do not have much choice - if I create 3-sided cards and import the file, I get it both ways. So up till now my method to "deal with it" is to mark all inverse entries as "well learned". I imagine this kind of approach definitely screws up the statistics and is a bother anyway. And I have little control about when to start learning the inverse entry as for some time I just keep pushing them in future:-) About the only alternative for me is to create two two-sided sets, and import the "inverse set" later when I want to start using them. I'm about to try this now. But my question was rather about how much of this kind of irregular use patterns could invalidate the overall data? I imagine even picking up the mnemosyne deck after a few years break can be unpredictable. I could have learned the language well in the meantime using other means and now pull out the mnemosyne to "check myself", or inversely have done nothing (maybe have been studying another language) and my recall is catastrophic. So what can I imply about the long term memory if I do not know which one of these patterns has been followed? I can probably filter off all cases of long disuse of cards - use the data sequences only while the deck is in active, being at least in weekly use. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mnemosyne-proj-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mnemosyne-proj-users?hl=en.
