MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965986622 · doi:10.1177/1745691610375555

Why We Remember and What We Remember

2010· review· en· W1965986622 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

VenuePerspectives on Psychological Science · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMnemonicAutobiographical memoryPsychologySocializationAffect (linguistics)Interpersonal communicationCognitive psychologyCognitionRecallSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine cultural (mainly East and West) differences in the functions and contents of autobiographical memory. We discuss how cultural differences in physical environments, self-views, the motivation to self-enhance, concerns for behavioral and emotional regulation, socialization, and language affect the contents and use of memory. Cultural influences take place at the individual level of cognitive schemata and memory strategies, as well as the interpersonal sphere of daily mnemonic practices and exchanges. Autobiographical memory is categorically cultural.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.279 · 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