MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982741963 · doi:10.1300/j151v02n03_04

The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in Forensic Psychology

2003· article· en· W1982741963 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

VenueJournal of Forensic Neuropsychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalingeringPsychologyTest (biology)Memory testCognitive psychologyClinical psychologyCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) is described with particular emphasis directed towards the historical setting within which the TOMM was developed. This includes a review of the criteria for developing a memory malingering test, and the use of the empirically derived decision along with a discussion of the relative merits of empirically based vs. statistically based rules for detecting malingering. Data from a series of five experiments showing the sensitivity of the TOMM to feigned memory impairments, guidelines for interpretation of TOMM scores, and answers to frequently asked questions about the TOMM are provided. Finally, the ability of the TOMM to meet the Daubert guidelines is addressed.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.284 · 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