Relationships between executive functions tasks in late childhood.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive functions (EF) is a general term that refers to cognitive processes designed to organize and adapt human behavior in situations that require planning and decision making, problem solving, initiation and inhibition of actions, and adapting to changes. Among the main components of executive processes, we can emphasize the ability to inhibit and to present cognitive flexibility due to changes. Understanding the relationships among the various components of EF in adults and children has been a focus in the literature. However, these processes are complex and multiple. The present study sought to determine whether correlations exist among performances measured by different tools used to evaluate EF in school-age children. The sample comprised 59 children aged 8 to 12 years attending public schools. Participants were assessed using verbal fluency tasks and narrative discourse with the Montreal Battery of Evaluation of Communication-MAC Battery, random-number generation, the Hayling Test, the Bells Test, and the n-back test. Correlation analyses were performed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. The results suggested a closer relationship among some components of the evaluation of EF, especially among tasks that assess inhibition and cognitive flexibility.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".