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

Memory Span on the Wechsler Scales

2004· article· en· W1993562836 on OpenAlexafffund
Nancy J. Wilde, Esther Strauss, David S. Tulsky

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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

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

Citations173
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Experimental NeuropsychologySame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207