MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951942694 · doi:10.1177/0033294119856554

Emotional Memory in Oral Contraceptive Users: Negative Stimuli Are More Forgettable

2019· article· en· W2951942694 on OpenAlexafffund
Brandi Person, Kirsten A. Oinonen

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersCanadian Psychological Association
KeywordsRecallPsychologyAmygdalaDevelopmental psychologyRecall testFree recallMemoriaClinical psychologyCognitionCognitive psychologyPsychiatryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research suggests oral contraceptive use is associated with altered memory for emotional story information, blunted stress hormone responses to emotional stimuli, and altered structure or function of the amygdala and hippocampus. This study examined the extent to which oral contraceptives influence relative recall of (a) the spatial location of emotional versus neutral stimuli and (b) positive versus negative emotional stimuli. Participants (58 oral contraceptive users, 40 nonusers, and 37 men) completed an Emotional Spatial Memory test and were evaluated on short-term recall and long-term (one week) recall. There was no evidence for group differences in recall of the locations of emotional versus neutral stimuli. However, oral contraceptive users remembered relatively more positive than negative items compared with nonusers and men on the spatial memory test. This effect was driven by oral contraceptive users recalling fewer negative items than free cyclers. The results indicate that hormonal contraceptives may decrease immediate recall of negative emotional stimuli.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207