What do we think about our memory functioning tell us how it really works? [Poster presentation]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction/Aims: The relation between autobiographical memory and memory complaints has been widely studied. Results has been inconsistent and explained by several factors (e.g., age, emotional state, nature of the tasks). On other hand, the relation between subjective memory complaints and working memory is sparsely studied. The current work aimed to understand the relation between subjective memory complaints and objective memory tasks, specifically visuospatial tasks and immediate evocation. Method: The sample consisted of 80 participants: 40 young adults aged between 18 and 35 years and 40 older adults aged 65 years or over. The following instruments and tasks were applied: Sociodemographic Questionnaire, Subjective Memory Complaints Questionnaire, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), objective memory tasks (i.e., digit span; word span; colors span and corsi blocks), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Results: The results indicated the existence of significant differences in subjective memory complaints between young adults and older adults. The results also indicated that individuals with higher levels of depression had more subjective memory complaints, and this fact was particularly evident in the older adults. Conclusion: The study indicates that there is a relation between subjective memory complaints and results obtained in objective tasks among young adults and older adults. It also indicates that there are differences between age groups in subjective memory complaints. However, the depression variable may be a contributing factor to the emergence of these subjective memory complaints.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".