Impairments to Consolidation, Reconsolidation, and Long-Term Memory Maintenance Lead to Memory Erasure
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
An enduring problem in neuroscience is determining whether cases of amnesia result from eradication of the memory trace (storage impairment) or if the trace is present but inaccessible (retrieval impairment). The most direct approach to resolving this question is to quantify changes in the brain mechanisms of long-term memory (BM-LTM). This approach argues that if the amnesia is due to a retrieval failure, BM-LTM should remain at levels comparable to trained, unimpaired animals. Conversely, if memories are erased, BM-LTM should be reduced to resemble untrained levels. Here we review the use of BM-LTM in a number of studies that induced amnesia by targeting memory maintenance or reconsolidation. The literature strongly suggests that such amnesia is due to storage rather than retrieval impairments. We also describe the shortcomings of the purely behavioral protocol that purports to show recovery from amnesia as a method of understanding the nature of amnesia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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