MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007928961 · doi:10.1177/0013916503251470

Relationship among Environmental Pointing Accuracy, Mental Rotation, Sex, and Hormones

2004· article· en· W2007928961 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Bell, Deborah M. Saucier

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Behavior · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpatial Cognition and Navigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental rotationSpatial memoryCognitive mapVariety (cybernetics)Spatial cognitionRepresentation (politics)CognitionSpace (punctuation)Point (geometry)Computer scienceSpatial abilityMental representationCognitive psychologyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceMathematicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans rely on internal representations to solve a variety of spatial problems including navigation. Navigation employs specific information to compose a representation of space that is distinct from that obtained through static bird’s-eye or horizontal perspectives. The ability to point to on-route locations, off-route locations, and the route origin illustrates the unique types of spatial knowledge that can be acquired during navigation. This research explores the accuracy with which men and women perform these types of pointing tasks to better understand the development and structure of their cognitive maps as a result of experience in the environment. Interestingly, it appears that endogenous concentrations of the sex hormone testosterone significantly predict pointing accuracy. This pattern is consistent with what is observed with pencil-and-paper tasks of spatial ability that may relate to environmental spatial abilities such as navigation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations38
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and BehaviorSame topicSpatial Cognition and NavigationFrench-language works237,207