Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study reports on 4 experiments aimed at investigating potential sex differences on a curve tracing task. Furthermore, curve tracing was used as an indirect approach to explore the holistic versus piecemeal strategy hypothesis used to account for sex differences in mental rotation. In Experiment 1, participants only completed a curve tracing task. The Navon (1977) local/global task was added in Experiment 2, whereas mental rotation was included in Experiment 3. Experiment 4 corrected issues encountered with the mental rotation task in Experiment 3. All 4 experiments showed a performance advantage for men on accuracy in curve tracing, although the Sex × Distance interaction required to support preference for a holistic strategy in men was not found. The Navon task findings supported the notion that men show a reduced global precedence effect when compared with women. The performance advantage for men in mental rotation only emerged in Experiment 4. Finally, the tasks showed a pattern of correlations suggestive of common components aside from attention. The General Discussion focuses on alternative explanations of the findings and further research required to elucidate them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".