Cognitive Performance Differentiates Selected Aspects of Psychosocial Maturity in Adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined relations between adolescents' cognitive performance and psychosocial maturity. Forty-eight adolescents in Grades 9 and 12 were measured on intelligence (composite, crystallized, fluid), executive functioning (backward digit span, Color Trails 2 (CT2), Stroop, everyday problem solving), and psychosocial maturity (subjective age, problem behavior, psychological maturity). Significant relations between aspects of cognitive performance and psychosocial maturity emerged. Problem behavior was related to lower crystallized intelligence, whereas psychological maturity was related to higher crystallized intelligence and better performance on the CT2. Psychosocially mature adolescents had significantly higher composite IQ scores than did pseudomature adolescents. Mature adolescents also showed advantages in crystallized and fluid intelligence, and in performance on the CT2, compared to their less mature counterparts (the combined group of immature and pseudomature adolescents). The results suggest that cognitive abilities are related to psychosocial maturity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".