MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075767213 · doi:10.1080/13803391003781874

A review of factors that moderate autobiographical memory performance in patients with major depressive disorder

2010· review· en· W2075767213 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

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityUniversity of CalgaryBaycrest HospitalSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutobiographical memoryPsychologyMajor depressive disorderComorbidityRecallEpisodic memoryElectroconvulsive therapyMoodClinical psychologyExecutive dysfunctionPsychiatryCognitionCognitive psychologyNeuropsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies of autobiographical recall in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) reveal overgeneralization, where autobiographical memory (AM) comprises primarily factual or repeated information as opposed to details specific in time and in place and definitive of episodic re-experiencing. In addition to reviewing AM impairment in MDD, we explore the contribution of key method, demographic, and clinical variables to this dysfunction. Several candidate variables emerge, including testing method, emotion, mood state, illness burden, medication status, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), comorbidity, trauma, age, ruminative state, and executive and memory function. These variables appear to interact in a complex manner to influence AM performance in MDD.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.358 · 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