MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054654437 · doi:10.1080/87565641.2010.508546

Memory Maintenance and Inhibitory Control Differentiate from Early Childhood to Adolescence

2010· article· en· W2054654437 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neuropsychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsPsychologyInhibitory controlDevelopmental psychologyEarly childhoodEarly adulthoodInhibitory postsynaptic potentialYoung adultNeuroscienceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing evidence suggests that the organization of cognitive functions may differentiate during development. We investigated two key components of executive functions, memory maintenance and inhibitory control, by applying latent factor models appropriate for examining developmental differences in functional associations among aspects of cognition. Two-hundred and sixty-three children (aged 4 to 14 years) were administered tasks that required maintaining rules in mind or inhibiting a prepotent tendency to respond on the same side as the stimulus. Memory maintenance and inhibitory control were not separable in children of 4-7 or 7-9.5 years, but were differentiated in an older group (9.5-14.5 years).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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