MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997360678 · doi:10.1037/0894-4105.18.2.276

False Memories in Schizophrenia.

2004· article· en· W1997360678 on OpenAlexaff
Steffen Moritz, Todd S. Woodward, Carrie Cuttler, Jennifer C. Whitman, Jason M. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)False memoryCognitionClinical psychologyPsychiatryDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In prior studies, it was observed that patients with schizophrenia show abnormally high knowledge corruption (i.e., high-confident errors expressed as a percentage of all high-confident responses were increased for schizophrenic patients relative to controls). The authors examined the conditions under which excessive knowledge corruption occurred using the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm. Whereas knowledge corruption in schizophrenia was significantly greater for false-negative errors relative to controls, no group difference occurred for false-positive errors. The groups showed a comparable high degree of confidence for false-positive recognition of critical lure items. Similar to findings collected in elderly participants, patients, but not controls, showed a strong positive correlation between the number of recognized studied items and false-positive recognition of the critical lure.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations88
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologySame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207