Susana Solano: Proyectos en el Museo Colecciones ICO. Madrid
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
Potentially traumatic events elicit intrusive memories to which some individuals are more vulnerable than others. Lower abstract reasoning capacity has been related to more intrusive memories. A more perceptual processing style when encoding the event may mediate this link. Another potential mechanism is lower attentional control, resulting in greater attentional bias toward trauma-related content. We examined both of these possibilities using a trauma-analogue paradigm. One hundred and twenty participants completed abstract reasoning tasks. Then, 90 participants watched a negative video, and 30 participants watched a neutral video. The level of perceptual processing (P1) and attentional bias (RT) towards trauma-related stimuli were measured with a pictorial Stroop task while recording EEG. Intrusive memories were recorded for 5 days. Abstract reasoning was not associated with intrusive memories. However, lower abstract reasoning tended to be associated with more perceptual processing (greater P1 amplitude) following the negative video. More perceptual processing also tended to be related to more intrusive memories for younger participants. A more pronounced attentional bias was related to more intrusive memories, but only for women. Unexpectedly, also for women, better verbal reasoning was linked to a more pronounced attentional bias. Results are compared to existing studies and future implications are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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