MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030134835 · doi:10.1080/03610730600875858

Internally Generated Memory Testing: Results of Repeated Test Administration

2006· article· en· W2030134835 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas J. Baker, Laura S. Graybeal, Anna M. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Aging Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsRecallPsychologyTest (biology)AudiologyMemory testFree recallCognitive psychologyCognitionDevelopmental psychologyMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A critical memory skill rarely clinically tested is the ability to remember self-generated material. Healthy aged participants (n = 30; Experiment 1) and pilot participants with probable Alzheimer disease (pAD) (n = 9; Experiment 2) were twice administered a memory test including both internally generated and externally supplied items for recall. Healthy aged participants were biased to recall internally originating over externally supplied material on first, but not second, presentation. However, pAD participants demonstrated internal bias during both sessions. The pAD participants were also specifically impaired when told to remember internal material. This study provides further evidence that internally originating items can be used to assess memory. In pAD, memory for internal material with specific attempt to remember may be selectively impaired.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.412
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental Aging ResearchSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207