Prospects for assessing of prospective memory in forensic psychiatric examinations of legal capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to develop evidence-based approaches to forensic psychiatric examination of legal capacity, methods for studying prospective memory were tested in persons with chronic mental disorders living in residential care facilities or being on a semi-stationary form of social services. The sample consisted of 25 people. Methods included laboratory, naturalistic and natural methods for studying prospective memory, Comprehensive assessment of prospective memory (CAPM), The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Russian version of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS), PSP, the Standardized Protocol of Clinical Interview. The relationships between experimentally detected impairments in prospective memory and impairments in cognitive, executive, volitional and motivational functions were confirmed. It is concluded that prospective memory is directly related to the ability to regulate person’s activities in everyday life, which determines the appropriateness of prospective memory assessment in forensic psychiatric examinations of legal capacity. The results of an experimental study of prospective memory in combination with self-questionnaires can be considered as an additional method of studying critical functions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".