MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092334772 · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.120.3.735

The differential effects of stress on memory consolidation and retrieval: A potential involvement of reconsolidation? Theoretical comment on Beckner et al. (2006).

2006· letter· en· W2092334772 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMemory consolidationConsolidation (business)PsychologyCognitive psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.268 · 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