MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1783807137 · doi:10.1002/hbm.22438

Reversed hierarchy in the brain for general and specific cognitive abilities: A morphometric analysis

2014· article· en· W1783807137 on OpenAlexaff
Francisco J. Román, Francisco J. Abad, Sergio Escorial, Miguel Burgaleta, Kenia Martínez, Juan Álvarez‐Linera, Ma Ángeles Quiroga, Sherif Karama, Richard J. Haier, Roberto Colom

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionGray (unit)Cognitive psychologyGeneralityWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleHierarchyBrain morphometryEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceBrain sizeCognitive testFluid and crystallized intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Developmental psychologyNeuroscienceWorking memoryFluid intelligenceComputer scienceMagnetic resonance imagingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intelligence is composed of a set of cognitive abilities hierarchically organized. General and specific abilities capture distinguishable, but related, facets of the intelligence construct. Here, we analyze gray matter with three morphometric indices (volume, cortical surface area, and cortical thickness) at three levels of the intelligence hierarchy (tests, first-order factors, and a higher-order general factor, g). A group of one hundred and four healthy young adults completed a cognitive battery and underwent high-resolution structural MRI. Latent scores were computed for the intelligence factors and tests were also analyzed. The key finding reveals substantial variability in gray matter correlates at the test level, which is substantially reduced for the first-order and the higher-order factors. This supports a reversed hierarchy in the brain with respect to cognitive abilities at different psychometric levels: the greater the generality, the smaller the number of relevant gray matter clusters accounting for individual differences in intelligent performance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 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

Citations46
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207