Gender differences in metacognitive judgments and performance on a goal-directed wayfinding task
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have shown a gender difference in wayfinding ability, including a related gender difference in global metacognitive self-assessment and spatial anxiety. However, few studies have examined whether there are gender differences in trial-by-trial self-assessment, or, what we term, local metacognition. We assessed trial-by-trial metacognitive performance in a sample of men and women engaging in a first-person goal-directed maze wayfinding task. Methods for assessing trial-by-trial metacognitive performance were adapted from Nelson and Narens’ (1990, Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The psychology of learning and motivation, 26, 125–141.) Metamemory framework. Results showed that men were more accurate at assessing their trial-by-trial performance than women when the assessment was made after performance. This suggests that women are more likely to err in assessing their past navigational performance, and thus may be less likely to undertake corrective control actions in the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it