MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051135344 · doi:10.1101/lm.2000811

Repeatedly reactivated memories become more resistant to hippocampal damage

2011· article· en· W2051135344 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueLearning & Memory · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Hippocampal formationConditioningHippocampusPsychologyAmnesiaSession (web analytics)Long-term memoryNeuroscienceDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyCognitionComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined whether repeated reactivations of a context memory would prevent the typical amnesic effects of post-training damage to the hippocampus (HPC). Rats were given a single contextual fear-conditioning session followed by 10 reactivations, involving a brief return to the conditioning context (no shock). Subsequently, the rats received sham or complete lesions of the HPC. When tested for retention, the HPC rats that experienced the reactivations froze significantly more than nonreactivation HPC rats and did not significantly differ from their respective control group. These findings suggest that memory reactivations contribute to long-term memories becoming independent of the HPC.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.205 · 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