Commentary: A response to Wortzel and Arciniegas about amnesia and crime.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The review by Wortzel and Arciniegas of the phenomenology and neuroanatomy of memory is a welcome complement to our psychiatric clinical perspective on the concept of amnesia in relation to crime. The authors raise their concerns in noting that certain concepts referred to in the literature are inconsistent with the phenomenology and neurobiology of memory. In response, we clarify the DSM-IV-TR nomenclature and provide information on current research exploring various mechanisms outlining memory impairment and other neurocognitive deficits in schizophrenia and other psychoses. In relation to amnesia and crime, the practice of forensic psychiatry requires the expert to be able to consider the validity of amnesia claims in criminal proceedings, translate scientific knowledge into a language accessible to the court, and provide an opinion. As such, a psychiatric clinical approach to the concept of amnesia in relation to crime provides a useful framework.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.061 | 0.066 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".