MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064904358 · doi:10.1080/09658210444000223

What we remember and what we tell: The effects of culture and self-priming on memory representations and narratives

2004· article· en· W2064904358 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

VenueMemory · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPriming (agriculture)NarrativeRecallAutobiographical memoryCognitive psychologyChildhood memoryDevelopmental psychologyEpisodic memoryCognitionSocial psychologyLinguisticsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments were conducted to explore culture and self-priming effects on memories of Caucasian and Asian American adults (N=526). In the experimental conditions, either the collective or private self was primed prior to retrieval. Participants then described their earliest childhood memories (Study 1) or recalled a fictional story (Study 2). Systematic cultural differences in memory content were obtained across both memory tasks, independent of priming conditions. Caucasians tended to recall specific, one-moment-in-time events that focused on the individual as the central character. Asians tended to provide memories of general, routine events centering on collective activities and social interactions. Priming effects also emerged: memory content reflected the particular aspect of the self being primed. Findings are discussed in light of the interactive relation between memory representations and memory narratives and the role culture plays in remembering.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.306 · 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