The differential effects of stress on memory consolidation and retrieval: A potential involvement of reconsolidation? Theoretical comment on Beckner et al. (2006).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous experiments in the field of stress and memory have suggested a facilitative effect of stress hormones on the consolidation of information but an impairing effect on the retrieval of information. In the article "Stress Facilitates Consolidation of Verbal Memory for a Film but Does Not Affect Retrieval," V. E. Beckner, D. M. Tucker, Y. Delville, and D. C. Mohr (2006) report that exposure to an anticipatory psychological stress enhances consolidation, although it has no impact on the retrieval of previously learned information. This finding is discussed around the importance of the environmental context in which stress is applied and memory is measured. Here, the authors raise the possibility that the enhancing effects of stress on consolidation as reported by Beckner et al. may be explained by the fact that stress can act as a reactivation cue, leading to a 2nd round of consolidation, a process called reconsolidation.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".