Attentional Processes in Abstinent Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (Ecstasy) Users
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
In recent years, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or ecstasy) has gained great popularity among young adults. Although human research in abstinent users has focused primarily on memory function, little attention has been given to other neuropsychological functions that may have some bearing on memory performance, such as attention. Hence, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of MDMA on attentional processes. Accordingly, 24 MDMA users and 30 matched normal controls were tested on the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) and the Test of Everyday Attention (TEA). We found MDMA users to show generally no significant difference on attention tasks compared with controls with the exception of a single TEA subtest. More interestingly, we found some preliminary evidence to indicate that dosage, in terms of the number of tablets used, may be related to impairment on specific component attentional tasks. This finding brings to light the important relationship between poor attentional processes and drug-taking behaviors and their reciprocal relationship.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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