MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relationship between interference control and working memory with academic performance in high school students: The Adolescent Student Academic Performance longitudinal study (ASAP)

2020· article· en· W3011971970 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et CultureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsWorking memoryPsychologyLongitudinal studyAcademic achievementCognitionDevelopmental psychologyShort-term memoryNinthControl (management)Task (project management)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between interference control and working memory with academic performance in both female and male high school students using a longitudinal design. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-seven grade seventh to ninth students (mean age: 13.1 ± 1.0 years old) from a French-Canadian high school located in Montreal, Canada, completed a 3-year prospective study. Interference control (Flanker task), working memory (N-back task) and academic performance (grades in science, mathematics, language and the overall average) were assessed every year during the 3-year study. RESULTS: Female students had significantly higher grades than male students for overall average, science and language at year 1 as well as higher grades for overall average and language at year 3 (p < 0.05). However, no differences were found between genders for any measures of interference control or working memory at year 1 and 3. Furthermore, we noted that the relations between cognitive control with our academic performance measures differ according to gender. Finally, our results showed that neither interference control nor working memory seem to be the primary predictor for any of our academic performance measures in both female and male students. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the present study indicate that cognitive control measures were not able to explain the gender differences in academic performance. Our results also show that interference control and working memory were weakly related to academic performance and that these associations had a poor ability to predict variations in academic performance during a 3-year period.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.258 · 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