MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170203599 · doi:10.1002/acp.1062

Plausibility and belief in autobiographical memory

2004· article· en· W2170203599 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Cognitive Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutobiographical memoryPsychologyConstruct (python library)Childhood memoryCognitive psychologySchematicCognitionDevelopmental psychologyEpisodic memoryRecall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Investigations of the recovery and falsification of childhood memories have used one construct in lieu of another. Autobiographical memories have typically not been distinguished from autobiographical beliefs, and researchers have assumed that plausibility and schematic knowledge measure identical constructs. We tested the hypothesis that plausibility, autobiographical belief, and autobiographical memory are nested constructs, such that memory implies belief and belief implies plausibility. Six hundred and eighty five students answered questions about these constructs in relation to ten possible childhood events. Analysis of item means, response probabilities and the frequency with which items followed the predicted order demonstrated that the predicted pattern was upheld in over 95% of cases. Results did not support the hypothesis that plausibility and script knowledge are significantly related. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.294 · 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