Why recall our highs and lows: Relations between memory functions, age, and well-being
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined whether positive and negative memories (life story high and low points) were differentially used for reminiscence functions concerning self and social aspects of reminiscing, and relations between function use and well-being in two age groups. Life story high and low points were collected from a sample of emerging (n =56) and older (n =55) adults, as well as a measure of the use of these memories for the self-functions of death preparation, identity, and problem solving, and the social functions of conversation and teach/inform, and a measure of psychological well-being. Memories were also coded for whether or not they contained a redemptive narrative structure (from emotionally negative to emotionally positive). Results showed that the endorsement of reminiscence functions did differ by memory type, with high points more often endorsed for the functions of identity, teach/inform, and conversation than low points. These main effects were qualified by memory type x age interactions. The use of these functions for each kind of memory was also related to well-being, but differentially for older and younger people, and redemptive sequencing was especially important to the well-being of the younger group. Findings are discussed in terms of the importance of different emotional memories for self and well-being at different points in the lifespan.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it