MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982197352 · doi:10.1080/17470210600943450

Autobiographical Memory Specificity Predicts Social Problem-Solving Ability in Old and Young Adults

2006· article· en· W1982197352 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Beaman, Dolores Pushkar, Sarah Etezadi, Dorothea Bye, Michael Conway

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicProblem Solving Skills Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAutobiographical memoryCognitionRecallPriming (agriculture)Developmental psychologyCued speechSocial cognitionCognitive psychologyTask (project management)Cognitive aging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on recent research with young, depressed adults, age-related cognitive declines and decreased autobiographical specificity were hypothesized to predict poorer social problem-solving ability in older than in younger healthy adults. Priming autobiographical memory (ABM) was hypothesized to improve social problem-solving performance for older adults. Subsequent to cognitive tests, old and young participants' specific ABMs were tested using a cued recall task, followed by a social problem-solving task. The order of the tasks was counterbalanced to test for a priming effect. Autobiographical specificity was related to cognitive ability and predicted social problem-solving ability for both age groups. However, priming of ABM did not improve social problem-solving ability for older or younger adults. This study provides support for the hypothesis that autobiographical memory serves a directive function across the life-span.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations63
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of Experimental PsychologySame topicProblem Solving Skills DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207