MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4250370259 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/7dwpg

Classification of general and personal semantic details in the Autobiographical Interview

2020· preprint· en· W4250370259 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Renoult, Michael J. Armson, Nicholas B. Diamond, Carina L. Fan, Nivethika Jeyakumar, Laryssa Levesque, Laura Oliva, Margaret C. McKinnon, Alissa Papadopoulos, Dhawal Selarka, Peggy L. St. Jacques, Brian Levine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsSemantic dementiaAutobiographical memorySemantic memoryFrontotemporal dementiaEpisodic memoryFrontotemporal lobar degenerationComputer scienceSemantics (computer science)Variety (cybernetics)PsychologyCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceDementiaCognitionMedicineDiseaseRecall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Autobiographical Interview (AI) separates internal (episodic) and external (non-episodic) details from transcribed protocols using an exhaustive and reliable scoring system. While the details comprising the internal composite are centered on elements of episodic memory, external details are more heterogeneous as they are meant to capture a variety of non-episodic utterances: general semantics, different types of personal semantics details, metacognitive statements, repetitions, and details about off topic events. Elevated external details are consistently observed in aging and in neurodegenerative diseases. In the present study, we augmented the AI scoring system to differentiate subtypes of external details to test whether the elevation of these details in aging and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (including mixed frontotemporal/semantic dementia [FTD/SD] and progressive non-fluent aphasia [PNFA]) would be specific to general and personal semantics or would concern all subtypes. Specifically, we separated general semantic details from personal semantic details (including autobiographical facts, self-knowledge, and repeated events). With aging, external detail elevation was observed for general and personal semantic details but not for other types of external details. In frontotemporal lobar degeneration, patients with FTD/SD (but not PNFA) generated an excess of personal semantic details ¬but not general semantic details. The increase in personal but not general semantic details in FTD/SD is consistent with prevalent impairment of general semantic memory in SD, and with the personalization of concepts in this condition. Under standard AI instructions, external details were intended to capture off-topic utterances and were not intended as a direct measure of semantic abilities. Future investigations concerned with semantic processing in aging and in dementia could modify standard instructions of the AI to directly probe semantic content.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism→French-language works237,207→