MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969482920 · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00224035

Evaluating the relationship between REM and memory consolidation: A need for scholarship and hypothesis testing

2000· article· en· W1969482920 on OpenAlexaff
Carlyle Smith, Gregory M. Rose

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral and Brain Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)ScholarshipMemory consolidationCognitive psychologyPsychologyCognitive scienceSleep (system call)NeuroscienceComputer sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsHippocampus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The function of REM, or any other stage of sleep, can currently only be conjectured. A rational evaluation of the role of REM in memory processing requires systematic testing of hypotheses that are optimally derived from a complete synthesis of existing knowledge. Our view is that the large number of studies supporting a relationship between REM-related brain activity and memory is not easily explained away. [Vertes & Eastman]

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)0.143
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.259
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1430.259
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.030
Scholarly communication0.0120.044
Open science0.0140.008
Research integrity0.0090.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.637
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral and Brain SciencesSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207