Are there gender differences in verbal and visuospatial working-memory resources?
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
Whereas women generally outperform men in episodic-memory tasks, little is known as to how the genders compare with respect to basic working-memory operations. In reference to Baddeley's (1986) model, the present study searched for possible gender differences in terms of accuracy (but not speed) of working-memory processes. Men and women completed series of working-memory tasks respectively involving verbal and visuospatial information, as well as a double-span task involving both classes of information. Control measures included verbal fluency and mental rotation tasks in which gender differences are frequently obtained. In these tasks, the results showed several of the expected gender contrasts. However, men and women were not found to differ significantly in any type of working memory save in the double-span task where women surpassed men. The patterns of task intercorrelation were largely similar in both genders. Discussion emphasises the manifestation, based on the present exploration, of an almost identical working-memory architecture in men and women.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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