MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625008559 · doi:10.1080/09658211.2017.1305094

Theoretical and applied issues regarding autobiographical belief and recollection

2017· editorial· en· W2625008559 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMemory · 2017
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyRecallAutobiographical memoryPsychoanalysisCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Do you believe that you celebrated your most recent birthday? Probably yes. Do you also believe that you celebrated your first birthday? Probably yes as well. However, do you also vividly recollect both birthday occasions? Probably not. While you may both recollect and believe that you celebrated the recent birthday, your belief that the first event took place is not informed by recollection. This example nicely demonstrates a recent theme in research on remembering. Whereas much previous research has focused on the recollective aspects of autobiographical memory, recent empirical work has emphasised that believing that an event took place plays a central role in remembering the past (Scoboria et al., 2014). The view that a variety of metacognitive appraisals contribute to the experience of remembering is not new. Several theoretical positions examine how the experience of autobiographical remembering is ...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.271 · 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