On misattributing good remembering to a happy past: An investigation into the cognitive roots of nostalgia.
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
Reflections on the past are often accompanied by an experience of nostalgia, or positive sentiments about some prior stage of one's life. In the current study, we provide evidence suggesting that nostalgic experiences may occur because of positive feelings that accompany the act of successful recall, rather than reflecting the true nature of the past. In a series of experiments, we employed an encoding manipulation to cause some words to support more detailed recollections than others. In turn, we measured the effect of these manipulations on judgments of both pleasantness and the emotional valence of a prior stimulus encounter. We demonstrate that recollections rich in meaning are unique in biasing people to judge having previously seen a stimulus in an emotionally positive context. In contrast, pleasantness judgments appear to be guided primarily by perceptual fluency. Overall, our results are consistent with the notion that the subjective experience of nostalgia represents a misattribution of successful remembering to a pleasant past.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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