Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern cognitive psychology has currently ben concerned with the emotion in various cognitive processes, particularly the relation between emotion and memory. In the present discussion of the problem of the two-way relationship between memory and emotion, the subject of great topical interest pertains to the question of the effects of different kinds of emotion on implicit memory, of which two orientations have formed in the research: studying remembering effects of emotion on normal persons on one side, and on the other, examining the ones on patients with mental mental illness or in an abnormal mental state. The former having focused on the exploration of the relation between mood and memory, discovers the -dependent remembering effect, the mood-consistent remembering effect, and the resource-distributional remembering effect. On the other hand, the latter having been based on the findings in five respects such as the clinical. manifestations of mental patients, functional amnesia, amnesia and emotional induction with hypnesis, mere exposure effect in implicit perception, as well as disassociation and de-synchronization, dafines in a systematical way the implicit function of emotional memory, holding that a wide range of diagnoses in relation to emotional reactions in mental patients can all indicate implicit memory. Following the above-mentioned trends of thinking and methids, modern cognitive psychology is bound to come up with a kind of theoretical framework and means to integrate psychological dynamics, by which further inquiry will be carried on into the processes of cognition, emotion and motivation, and even into such fundamental problems as the interaction between body and mind.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".