MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029688048 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095792

The Survival Effect in Memory: Does It Hold into Old Age and Non-Ancestral Scenarios?

2014· article· en· W2029688048 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConfoundingYoung adultSurvival analysisBiologyDemographyGerontologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The survival effect in memory refers to the memory enhancement for materials encoded in reference to a survival scenario compared to those encoded in reference to a control scenario or with other encoding strategies. The current study examined whether this effect is well maintained in old age by testing young (ages 18-29) and older adults (ages 65-87) on the survival effect in memory for words encoded in ancestral and/or non-ancestral modern survival scenarios relative to a non-survival control scenario. A pilot study was conducted to select the best matched comparison scenarios based on potential confounding variables, such as valence and arousal. Experiment 1 assessed the survival effect with a well-matched negative control scenario in both young and older adults. The results showed an age-equivalent survival effect across an ancestral and a non-ancestral modern survival scenario. Experiment 2 replicated the survival effect in both age groups with a positive control scenario. Taken together, the data suggest a robust survival effect that is well preserved in old age across ancestral and non-ancestral survival scenarios.

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)0.001
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.222 · 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