MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388305852 · doi:10.3917/anpsy1.233.0469

First Steps Toward the French Validation of the Memory Binding Test (fMBT): Adaptation, Convergent Validity and Application to Normal Aging

2023· article· fr· W4388305852 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan Mille, Valentin Magnon, Marie Izaute, Frédéric Dutheil, Guillaume T. Vallet

Bibliographic record

VenueL’Année psychologique · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundRégion Auvergne-Rhône-AlpesAgence Nationale de la RechercheEuropean Commission
KeywordsHumanitiesMemory testArtPsychologyPhilosophyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le test d’intégration mnésique (TIM) permet de repérer les atteintes débutantes de la mémoire. La nouveauté du test est de cibler l’intégration mnésique, processus précocement altéré dans la forme prodromale de la maladie d’Alzheimer. L’objectif de cette étude est d’adapter et valider en français ce test (fMBT) et d’explorer les effets de l’âge (16 jeunes adultes et 14 personnes âgées). Le fMBT présente une bonne à excellente validité convergente avec le RL/RI-16. La performance des jeunes adultes est supérieure à celle des personnes âgées pour presque tous les indices du fMBT. Le test est aussi sensible et spécifique que le RL/RI-16 pour distinguer les personnes âgées des jeunes adultes, mais le fMBT a l’avantage de ne pas produire d’effet plafond. Ce test pourrait donc servir à évaluer la mémoire d’adultes jeunes. Cette étude offre ainsi les premières étapes de la validation du fMBT. Il reste à déterminer si le fMBT permet bien de détecter des troubles subtiles de la mémoire.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL’Année psychologiqueSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207