MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989094986 · doi:10.1080/09658211.2011.558512

TV or not TV? Does the immediacy of viewing images of a momentous news event affect the quality and stability of flashbulb memories?

2011· article· en· W1989094986 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

VenueMemory · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmediacyAffect (linguistics)PsychologyEvent (particle physics)Quality (philosophy)Cognitive psychologySocial psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The flashbulb accounts of 38 participants concerning the September 11th 2001 terrorist attack reported at both 28 hours and 6 months following the event were examined for quantity, quality, and consistency as a function of the time lapse between first learning of the event and initial viewing of media images. The flashbulb accounts of those who reported seeing images at least an hour after learning of the event differed qualitatively, but not quantitatively, from accounts of participants who reported seeing images at the same time as or within minutes of learning of the event. Delayed viewing of images resulted in less elaborate and generally less consistent accounts across the 6-month interval. The results are discussed in terms of factors affecting flashbulb memory formation and individual differences in connectedness to the event.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.178 · 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