Reduced autobiographical memory specificity as an emotional avoidance strategy in opioid-dependent patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the reduced specificity of autobiographical memories in opioid-dependent patients and examines whether this phenomenon corresponds to an avoidance strategy in opioid-dependent patients and among the general population. Thirty opioid-dependent patients and 30 control participants were given Williams’ and Scott’s Autobiographical Memory Test (AMT) to evaluate the level of memory specificity. The use of cognitive avoidance strategy was measured with the Cognitive Avoidance Questionnaire (CAQ) and the level of depression with the Beck Depression 13 inventory (BDI 13). The AMT results confirm reduced memory specificity in the dependent patients, both for dependent patients with a depression diagnosis and for nondepressive dependent patients. Results also depict that the more participants (patients and control) use cognitive strategies of avoidance, the less they recall specific memories with the AMT. These data support the emotional avoidance hypothesis of reduced memory specificity in opioid-dependent patients and in the general population, regardless of a diagnosis of depression. Further research is needed to identify the emotion regulation function of reduced specificity in dependent patients. Furthermore, our findings do not exclude the implication of other mechanisms within autobiographical memory retrieval bias for dependent patients, such as a deficit of executive control.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".