MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170735813 · doi:10.2466/pr0.2002.91.3f.1137

Women's Advantage on Verbal Memory is Not Restricted to Concrete Words

2002· article· en· W2170735813 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

VenuePsychological Reports · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcretenessPsychologyObject (grammar)Verbal memoryCognitive psychologyVerbal reasoningNonverbal communicationCalifornia Verbal Learning TestDevelopmental psychologyCognitionArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well established that women perform better than men on tests of verbal memory, but the nature of this advantage is unclear. To examine whether reference to a real object is a factor, we presented several verbal memory tasks, including one containing words high and low in concreteness. Over all tests there was an expected female advantage. Although concrete words were recalled much better than abstract words, the female advantage was equivalent on both. The sex difference was not accounted for by a difference in verbal intelligence. Possible brain and adaptive mechanisms are discussed.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.002

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.275 · 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