Is traumatic memory special ? A comparison of traumatic memory characteristics with memory for other emotional life experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract According to the traumatic memory argument, traumatic experiences are processed and remembered in a fundamentally different way from other life events. To investigate the validity of this theory, 306 participants were asked to give detailed accounts of two life experiences: their most traumatic experience and their most positive emotional experience (counterbalanced). Participants also described the qualities of each memory and completed psychological scales measuring severity of trauma, personality, and dissociation. Results indicated that traumatic memories differed from non‐traumatic memories phenomenologically (e.g. vantage point) and qualitatively (e.g. number of details). However, the memories also showed important similarities (e.g. high degree of vividness). Only a small proportion (4.9%) of participants reported ‘recovering’ their traumatic memories after extended memory loss (most of whom reported consciously putting the experience out of awareness), and 2.6% reported forgetting their positive experiences for an extended period. Overall, traumatic memories were found to be ‘special’, but not in accordance with prominent fragmentation theories of trauma and memory. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".