Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present review of literature surveys two main issues related to self‐referential processes: (1) Where in the brain are these processes located, and do they correlate with brain areas uniquely specialized in self‐processing? (2) What are the empirical and theoretical links between inner speech and self‐awareness? Although initial neuroimaging attempts tended to favor a right hemispheric view of self‐awareness, more recent work shows that the brain areas which support self‐related processes are located in both hemispheres and are not uniquely activated during self‐reflective tasks. Furthermore, self‐awareness at least partially relies on internal speech. An activation of Broca’s area (which is known to sustain inner speech) is observed in a significant number of brain‐imaging studies of self‐reflection. Loss of inner speech following brain damage produces self‐awareness deficits. Inner speech most likely can internally reproduce social mechanisms leading to self‐awareness. Also, the process of self‐reflection can be seen as being a problem‐solving task, and self‐talk as being a cognitive tool the individual uses to effectively work on the task. It is noted that although a large body of knowledge already exists on self‐awareness, little is known about individual differences in dispositional self‐focus and types of self‐attention (e.g., rumination versus self‐reflection).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".