MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Myth of Total Recall

2015· book-chapter· en· W2495487545 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Douwe Draaisma, Liz Waters

Bibliographic record

VenueYale University Press eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMythologyRecallPsychologyArtCognitive psychologyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter considers the work of Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield, who contributed more than anyone to the theory that our brains contain a complete record of everything we have ever experienced. Based on several brain stimulation studies on patients with epilepsy, Penfield declared that our brains store away experiences “like a wire-recorder or a tape-recorder.” Current brain science has dispensed with the notion that Penfield discovered a neuronal tape recorder. Nonetheless, his theory has embedded itself in the collective memory, where its lies next to other favorite neuromyths such as “we use only 10 per cent of our brains,” or “women are better at multitasking because they have more connections between the two halves of their brains”—myths that are believed not because the evidence is convincing but because people want to believe them.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.155 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYale University Press eBooksSame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207