MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993562836 · doi:10.1080/13803390490496605

Memory Span on the Wechsler Scales

2004· article· en· W1993562836 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMemory spanWechsler Adult Intelligence ScalePsychologySpan (engineering)Working memoryCognitive psychologyShort-term memoryLife spanAudiologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitionNeuroscienceGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study had two goals. One was to assess whether the WMS-III Spatial Span subtest operates as a visual analogue of Digit Span while the second was to determine whether backward span is a more sensitive measure of working memory than the forward span condition. Analyses based on the WAIS-III-WMS-III standardization and clinical group data revealed some important distinctions between Digit and Spatial Span. The two tasks exhibited differences in patterns of performance on the forward versus backward conditions, in their relationships with age, and in their methodology. Moreover, the backward conditions of both Digit and Spatial Span did not appear more affected by risk factors such as aging or pathology than the forward scores. This runs contrary to the widespread notion that backward span provides differential sensitivity regarding working memory processing.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.324 · 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