MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769953759 · doi:10.1037/cep0000143

Alpha span: A measure of working memory.

2017· article· en· W2769953759 on OpenAlexaff
Fergus I. M. Craik, Ellen Bialystok, Susan Gillingham, Donald T. Stuss

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMemory spanWorking memorySpan (engineering)Task (project management)PsycINFOCognitive psychologyMeasure (data warehouse)Short-term memoryCognitionLife spanAlpha (finance)Developmental psychologyPsychometricsComputer scienceMEDLINEConstruct validityData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the alpha span test, short lists of words are presented and the participant's task is to mentally reorder the words and give them back in correct alphabetical order. Alpha span is the longest list of words correctly recalled; the article also describes a scoring method in which credit is given for partially correct answers. Alpha span provides a quick and easily completed measure of verbal-numerical working memory (WM), and evidence is presented to show that it is also a valid and reliable measure. One purpose of the article is to present data on age-related differences in WM in participants 17 to 87 years of age. These data show that alpha span is highest in people in their 20s and then declines systematically from the 20s to the 80s. A 2nd purpose is to report data on the reliability of the alpha span measure and explore its relationships with other cognitive measures. The article concludes with some comments on the nature of WM as illustrated by alpha span; specifically, we suggest that WM reflects both domain-general executive functions and specific abilities in the domain tapped by the task in question. (PsycINFO Database Record

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicCognitive Functions and MemoryFrench-language works237,207