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 OpenAlex
Thomas J. Baker, Laura S. Graybeal, Anna M. Barrett

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

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.161
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