MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994048523 · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.18.4.755

Latent Change Models of Adult Cognition: Are Changes in Processing Speed and Working Memory Associated With Changes in Episodic Memory?

2003· article· en· W1994048523 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Hertzog, Roger A. Dixon, David F. Hultsch, Stuart MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Aging · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsPsychologyEpisodic memoryWorking memoryCognitionCognitive psychologyStructural equation modelingLatent growth modelingDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors used 6-year longitudinal data from the Victoria Longitudinal Study (VLS) to investigate individual differences in amount of episodic memory change. Latent change models revealed reliable individual differences in cognitive change. Changes in episodic memory were significantly correlated with changes in other cognitive variables, including speed and working memory. A structural equation model for the latent change scores showed that changes in speed and working memory predicted changes in episodic memory, as expected by processing resource theory. However, these effects were best modeled as being mediated by changes in induction and fact retrieval. Dissociations were detected between cross-sectional ability correlations and longitudinal changes. Shuffling the tasks used to define the Working Memory latent variable altered patterns of change correlations.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations225
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and AgingSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207