The reminiscence circumplex and autobiographical memory functions
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 investigated the potential of a circumplex model to represent the functions of both reminiscence and autobiographical memory. Participants from four pre-existing data bases (i.e., Culley, LaVoie, & Gfeller, 2001; Webster, 1997, 2002; Webster & McCall, 1999) were combined, resulting in a total of 985 participants ranging in age from 17 to 96 (M age = 36.63 years). A total of 392 men (39.8%) and 591 women (60.1%), with two persons not reporting their gender, completed the Reminiscence Functions Scale (RFS) as part of the original four studies. The eight RFS factors were submitted to second-order factor analysis resulting in two orthogonal dimensions (self versus social and reactive/loss-oriented versus proactive/growth-oriented) accounting for 79.57% of the variance. Further, multidimensional scaling indicated that the original eight factors could be arranged in a circular fashion such that more closely related (i.e., more highly correlated) factors were placed closer together while factors less highly related were placed further apart. Advantages of a circumplex perspective for future theory and model development are illustrated.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 it