Directed forgetting of emotionally toned items and mental health: a meta-analytic review
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
Item- and list-method directed forgetting paradigms have been used to study forgetting of emotionally toned items in clinical and control group populations for several decades. Meta-analysis of item-method studies found that clinical populations retained more remember- than forget-cued items of each valence. These effects were comparable to that shown by control populations for positive and negative items, but less than that shown by controls on neutral items. Encoding deficits may underlie clinical populations' item-method directed forgetting since those populations retained fewer remember-cued items of each valence compared to control populations. Moderator analysis indicated larger effect size variability for some clinical populations (e.g., anxiety disorders) than other populations (e.g., PTSD, schizophrenia). Meta-analysis of list-method directed forgetting among clinical populations revealed only List 1 forgetting or costs for neutral items; i.e., better memory for to-be-remembered than forgotten List 1 neutral items, but no List 2 enhancements or benefits; i.e., better memory for List 2 items among those told to forget than remember List 1 items, for any item valence. Control populations showed costs and benefits for all item valences. Results from both paradigms are discussed in terms of clinical-control population differences in executive processes. Limitations of the meta-analyses and suggestions for future research are presented.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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