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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout history, memory and amnesia have been central to philosophical thought and empirical investigation. There has been particular interest in whether there are multiple forms of memory, how they are represented in the brain, how they are parsed following neurological compromise, and how their breakdown is best characterized. Differential abilities among amnestic individuals have advanced the distinction between various forms of memory, such as implicit and explicit memory in the case of H.M., and episodic and semantic memory in the case of K.C. This overview brings together a variety of perspectives on memory and the amnesias, from Clinical Neuropsychology, Neurology, and Cognitive Science, to Animal and Human Neuroscience. We begin with a brief history of the study of memory organization in the healthy brain and dissociations in memory as uncovered in extensively studied cases of amnesia. Memory impairment resulting from damage to the medial temporal lobe (MTL), diencephalon, basal forebrain, and the frontal lobes is then elaborated, with a focus on MTL amnesia, which has received the most attention among memory researchers. Alternative theories of MTL amnesia are considered through a selective review of the current amnesia and neuroimaging literatures on the seemingly disparate roles of the hippocampus in episodic and spatial memory, future imagining, perception, implicit memory, and working memory. If amnesia is a disorder that is not restricted to explicit (consciously accessible) memory, this will force us to rethink the way in which memory is represented in the human brain. WIREs Cogn Sci 2012, 3:47-63. doi: 10.1002/wcs.155 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it