MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156237726 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v4n1p46

Locus of Control Associations with Autobiographical Memory as Measured by Free and Directed Memory Recall

2012· article· en· W2156237726 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jorge J. Ricarte, José Miguel Latorre, Laura Ros

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación
KeywordsPsychologyRecallRuminationLocus of controlAutobiographical memoryPersonalityFree recallCognitive psychologyPerceptionDevelopmental psychologyCognitionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reduced specificity of memory retrieval has been explained by self-ruminative thinking. However, the relationship between autobiographical memory and other psychological variables has been less frequently assessed. The relationship between personality variables and memory retrieval could also vary in function of task requirements. The main aim of this work was to explore personality traits related to self-perceptions that could explain a specific trend of retrieval: Locus of Control, Self-Valoration, Life Satisfaction and Rumination. Furthermore, these relationships were explored under directed and free recall conditions. From the analysed variables, an Internal Locus of Control explained significantly specificity of recall in both conditions (free and directed recall). Rumination was explained by Life Satisfaction and specific memories obtained under free-recall conditions. These results suggest that probable effects of Locus of Control and self-perceptions on specificity of memories should be considered for its inclusion on memory search explicative models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207