MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055816330 · doi:10.1007/s11559-007-9004-8

Grading the gradient: Evidence for time-dependent memory reorganization in experimental animals

2007· article· en· W2055816330 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul W. Frankland, Cátia M. Teixeira, Szu‐Han Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueDebates in Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHippocampusHippocampal formationNeuroscienceAmnesiaPsychologyMemory consolidationCognitive psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In humans, damage limited to the hippocampus produces temporally graded retrograde amnesia, with relative sparing of remote compared to recent memory. This observation forms the cornerstone of the idea that as memories mature they are reorganized in a time-dependent manner. In this paper, we evaluate evidence for similar time-dependent reorganization in experimental animals. In the majority of behavioral paradigms examined, these studies provide evidence that memories are gradually reorganized over time, with the hippocampus and cortex playing preferential (although not necessarily mutually exclusive) roles in the expression of recent and remote memory, respectively. This pattern is not observed in all tasks, however. For example, in the water maze hippocampal activity is always necessary for memory expression. Identifying situations when the hippocampus is, and is not, required for remote memory expression will help us to understand hippocampal contributions to memory, and, more generally, whether changes in memory organization lead to qualitative changes in the nature of memory.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDebates in NeuroscienceSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207