Comparability of Total Score Performance on the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure and a Modified Taylor Complex Figure
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most commonly used neuropsychological measures of visuo-spatial abilities is the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure (ROCF) Test. Previous research has reliably shown that its companion figure, the Taylor Complex Figure, is not a comparable measure of visuo-spatial memory. The aims of the three studies presented here are to (a) introduce a modified version of the Taylor Figure (MTCF), and (b) examine the comparability of the ROCF and the MTCF using two different administration procedures. The first two studies used a between-subjects design in which half of the study participants received the ROCF and half received the MTCF. In Study 1, an incidental procedure was used in which participants were asked to first copy a figure and then reproduce it from memory without prior warning. In Study 2, an intentional procedure was used in which participants were first asked to observe the figures for the express purpose of reproducing them from memory followed by delay and copy trials. In Study 3, a within-subjects design using counterbalancing and an intentional procedure was used to examine the comparability of the two figures when administered to the same participants as in a true test-retest situation. Overall, the studies demonstrated that learning, memory, and copy score performance on the MTCF was comparable to that on the ROCF.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it