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

Why We Remember and What We Remember

2010· review· en· W1965986622 on OpenAlexaff
Michael G. Ross, Qi Wang

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations107
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on Psychological ScienceSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207