MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2309431678 · doi:10.1212/cpj.0000000000000131

Proust and madeleine

2015· article· en· W2309431678 on OpenAlexaff
Luis Fornazzari, Ann Mansur, Tom A. Schweizer, Corinne E. Fischer

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology Clinical Practice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPhenomenonContext (archaeology)Autobiographical memoryConsciousnessCognitive psychologySynesthesiaNeuroscienceRecallPerceptionHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Involuntary memories are mental states that once present in consciousness, return to it with apparent spontaneity and with no act of will; that is, they are reproduced involuntarily.”1 In his book, author Marcel Proust wrote about a vivid involuntary autobiographical memory (IAM) that was triggered by dipping a madeleine cookie into a cup of tea.2 IAMs, also known as the “petit madeleine phenomenon,” are an interesting cognitive phenomenon because they are conscious episodic memories but they are involuntarily retrieved based on associative processes.3 They are common in both normal and pathologic states, occurring 3 times more frequently than voluntary memories.3–5 They have been explored in the context of drug-induced states, posttraumatic stress disorder, and temporal lobe epilepsy.2 We describe a patient with a hypertensive hemorrhagic stroke in the left posterior thalamus who subsequently experienced both multimodal synesthesia (stimulation in one sensory modality giving rise to an experience in a different modality) and IAMs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.309
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology Clinical PracticeSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207