Age, cohort, and period effects on metamemory beliefs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 1,555; ages 55-85) from the Victoria Longitudinal Study collected in 1986, 1992, and 2000 to evaluate period and cohort effects on 8 MIA scales. Alternative general linear models analyzed age, cohort, and period effects, while subsequently assessing gender differences in metamemory beliefs. Period effects were detected on the MIA Internal Strategy and External Strategy scales; self-reported use of internal strategies decreased while use of external memory aids increased over the historical period. Reliable cohort (generational) differences were found for MIA Change, with the lowest levels of perceived change in individuals born between 1916 and 1925. MIA Task, measuring knowledge about memory, produced small age and cohort effects. Gender differences emerged in metamemory, especially for the Internal Strategy and External Strategy scales (women reporting higher strategy use). Gender differences were also seen for the Capacity, Locus, Anxiety, and Achievement scales, with women reporting higher perceived memory efficacy, control, memory anxiety, and greater motivation to have better memory, respectively. The historical trends in metamemory beliefs should be replicated with other measures and other populations; however, the results generally confirm conclusions from earlier cross-sectional studies regarding age sensitivity of metamemory beliefs from middle age to old age. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".