MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098900313

Biography Becomes Autobiography: Distorting The Subjective Past

2004· article· en· W2098900313 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel M. Bernstein, Veronika V. Nourkova, Elizabeth F. Loftus

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutobiographical memoryPsychologyBiographyAttributionOperationalizationPersonalityEvent (particle physics)SketchPeriod (music)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyRecallLiteratureAestheticsArtComputer scienceEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work addresses whether creating a biographical sketch for a fictional adolescent can increase confidence that one personally experienced these details in adolescence (memory distortion) and whether susceptibility to such distortion depends on whether adolescence is considered part of one’s subjective past or subjective present. We divided the subjective past and present using the point at which a person experienced the last life event that changed his or her personality significantly. We operationalized the subjective past as events associated with the period before the last life-changing event and the subjective present as events associated with the period after that event. Participants’ confidence in their own autobiographical memory increased after they wrote a brief story about a fictional character. This increase occurred only for those who considered adolescence to be part of their subjective past. These results indicate that subjective time (in addition to objective time) may be a valuable factor in determining who is susceptible to memory distortion. We discuss these findings in terms of familiarity attribution and source monitoring.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207