Divergent Perspectives in Prostitutes' Autobiographical Memories: Trauma and Dissociation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT An intriguing aspect of cognition is the perspective one takes when perceiving and/or remembering an event (i.e., field vs. observer perspectives/memories). Although explored from a cognitive viewpoint in terms of remembering, no research has examined this phenomenon from a forensic viewpoint in terms of the original experienced perspective. The objective of the present study was to test the utility of the field vs. observer distinction. Thirty-six prostitutes were interviewed and asked to recall three different autobiographical memories. Peri-traumatic dissociative symptoms, trait dissociation levels, current PTSD symptomatology, the perspective taken, and the quantity of detail were coded for each memory and compared. Extreme memorial variability was found both within and across the types of memories/perspectives reported. Among other findings, the results suggest significantly higher levels of state dissociation in memories originally perceived from an observer perspective than from a field perspective. Implications for expert testimony pertaining are briefly discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".