MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034721587 · doi:10.1348/000712609x482948

Parent–child relationship quality and infantile amnesia in adults

2010· article· en· W2034721587 on OpenAlexaff
Carole Peterson, Duyên Thi Kim Nguyêñ

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildhood amnesiaPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyAmnesiaChildhood memoryCognitionEpisodic memoryCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first years of life are typically shrouded by infantile amnesia, but there is enormous variability between adults in how early and how much they can remember from this period. This study examined one possible factor affecting this variability: whether the perceived quality of parent-child relationships is associated with the number of early memories young adults can retrieve, and their age at the time of their first memory. We found such associations but they were qualified by parent gender. Mother-child relationships that were more affectively intense (greater social support but also more negative interchanges) were associated with recalling more early memories, although paternal companionship was most associated with how early an individual's first memory was. Affective tone of retrieved memories was also assessed, and a greater proportion of affectively positive memories (as well as fewer affectively neutral memories for males) was associated with high parental involvement in children's lives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of PsychologySame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207