MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Memory reconsolidation: an update

2010· review· en· W1964186645 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemory consolidationConsolidation (business)AmnesiaPsychologyRetrograde amnesiaCognitive scienceNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyHippocampus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memory consolidation refers to the stabilization that a new memory has to undergo in order to persist. Recently, this dominant view of memory has been challenged by renewed interest in reconsolidation, where consolidated memories return to a transient unstable state following their retrieval, from which they must again stabilize in order to persist. In this review, we discuss how reconsolidation is supported by the same line of evidence as consolidation and recent findings of boundary conditions of reconsolidation. Furthermore, we discuss how recent controversies on the nature of amnesia following challenges to reconsolidation are using the same paradigm that failed to resolve the nature of amnesia after challenges to consolidation; we also discuss a new paradigm that can lead to more fruitful ways of studying amnesia in general.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.438
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.012 · 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