The Structure of Speed of Processing Across Cultures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 95) were assessed on an adaptation of the Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (D-N CAS; Naglieri & Das, 1997). Three alternative models were contrasted: a distinct abilities processing speed model (Model 1) that is dictated by the latent four cognitive factors of planning, attention, simultaneous and successive (PASS) processing, a unitary ability processing speed model (Model 2) that is dictated by the response time nature of all measures, and a bifactor model (Model 3) which included the latent scores of Models 1 and 2 and served as the full model. Results of structural equation modeling showed that (a) the model representing processing speed as a collection of four cognitive processes rather than a unitary processing speed factor was the most parsimonious, and (b) the loadings of the obtained factors were invariant across the three cultural groups. These findings enhance our understanding of the nature of speed of processing across diverse cultures and suggest that even when cognitive processes (i.e., PASS) are operationalized with response time measures, the processing component dominates speed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".