MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043284800 · doi:10.1093/arclin/16.5.501

Depression and the Test of Memory Malingering

2001· article· en· W2043284800 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalingeringPsychologyMemory impairmentDepression (economics)Memory testPsychiatryClinical psychologyNeuropsychologyNeuropsychological testAudiologyTest (biology)CognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) [Tombaugh, T. N., 1996. The Test of Memory Malingering. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems], has consistently shown that it is sensitive to exaggerated or deliberate faking of memory impairment, but it is relatively unaffected by a wide variety of neurological impairments causing genuine memory dysfunction. However, there is little research on the effects that affective disorders have on the TOMM. The current study examined how inpatients diagnosed with major depression performed on the TOMM. Results show that the TOMM is unaffected by affective state. These results, combined with those from previous research, provide converging evidence that performance on the TOMM below a cutoff score of 45 cannot be attributable to depression, neurological impairment, age or education.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.344 · 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