MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051861933 · doi:10.1093/geronb/57.1.p19

Psychometric Properties of a New Metamemory Questionnaire for Older Adults

2002· article· en· W2051861933 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series B · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetamemoryPsychologyDiscriminant validityConstruct validityClinical psychologyAffect (linguistics)Reliability (semiconductor)Construct (python library)Developmental psychologyPsychometricsMetacognitionCognitionPsychiatryInternal consistencyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subjective memory ratings provide information that is distinct from objective memory performance, and there is a need for reliable and valid metamemory measures. The Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire (MMQ), developed to assess separate dimensions of memory ratings that are applicable to clinical assessment and intervention, includes scales of Contentment (i.e., affect regarding one's memory), Ability (i.e., self-appraisal of one's memory capabilities), and Strategy (i.e., reported frequency of memory strategy use). Among a group of 115 older adults, analyses revealed excellent content validity, factorial validity, test-retest and intratest reliability, convergent and discriminant construct validity, and independence from demographic variables. The psychometric strengths of the MMQ, together with descriptive statistics provided for healthy older adults, make this questionnaire useful in both clinical and research settings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.259 · 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