MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412578298 · doi:10.1017/s0140525x1400020x

Memory reconsolidation, repeating, and working through: Science and culture in psychotherapeutic research and practice

2015· letter· en· W2412578298 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral and Brain Sciences · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Occupational Therapists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMemory consolidationPsychopathologyPsychological sciencePsychotherapistFocus (optics)Process (computing)Cognitive psychologyCognitive scienceNeuroscienceSocial psychologyClinical psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypothesizing that an effective common feature in divergent forms of psychotherapy is a process of memory reconsolidation integrating new emotional experiences, Lane et al. usefully shift the focus away from established and/or specialized techniques to deeper questions about the underlying principles of psychotherapeutic change. More research attention to cultural factors influencing the definition and treatment of psychopathology is also needed.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.387
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral and Brain SciencesSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207