MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131582937 · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a021782

Reconsolidation and the Dynamic Nature of Memory

2015· review· en· W2131582937 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEcho FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsMemory consolidationNeuroscienceBasolateral amygdalaPsychologyConsolidation (business)Cognitive scienceAmygdalaBiologyCognitive psychologyHippocampus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memory reconsolidation is the process in which reactivated long-term memory (LTM) becomes transiently sensitive to amnesic agents that are effective at consolidation. The phenomenon was first described more than 50 years ago but did not fit the dominant paradigm that posited that consolidation takes place only once per LTM item. Research on reconsolidation was revitalized only more than a decade ago with the demonstration of reconsolidation in a well-defined behavioral protocol (auditory fear conditioning in the rat) subserved by an identified brain circuit (basolateral amygdala). Since then, reconsolidation has been shown in many studies over a range of species, tasks, and amnesic agents, and cellular and molecular correlates of reconsolidation have also been identified. In this review, I will first define the evidence on which reconsolidation is based, and proceed to discuss some of the conceptual issues facing the field in determining when reconsolidation does and does not occur. Last, I will refer to the potential clinical implications of reconsolidation.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.351 · 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