MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326106868 · doi:10.1177/070674371506001204

What Do People Believe about Memory? Implications for the Science and Pseudoscience of Clinical Practice

2015· review· en· W2326106868 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPseudosciencePsychologyMental healthPublic healthLaw enforcementPopulationSocial psychologyPsychiatryMedicineAlternative medicineLawNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the evidence concerning what people believe about memory. We focus on beliefs regarding the permanence of memory and whether memory can be repressed and accurately recovered. We consider beliefs about memory among the undergraduate and general population, mental health professionals, judges, jurors, and law enforcement officers to provide a broad canvass that extends to the forensic arena, as well as to psychiatry, psychology, and allied disciplines. We discuss the implications of these beliefs for the education of the general public and mental health professionals regarding the science and pseudoscience of memory and the use of suggestive procedures in psychotherapy.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.291 · 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