Peer Review #1 of "Longitudinal relations among inattention, working memory, and academic achievement: testing mediation and the moderating role of gender (v0.1)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Behavioral inattention, working memory (WM), and academic achievement share significant variance, but the direction of relationships across development is unknown.The aim of the present study was to determine whether WM mediates the pathway between inattentive behaviour and subsequent academic outcomes.Methods: 204 students from grades 1-4 (49.5% female) were recruited from elementary schools.Participants received assessments of WM and achievement at baseline and one year later.WM measures included a visual-spatial storage task and auditory-verbal storage and manipulation tasks.Teachers completed the SWAN behaviour rating scale both years.Mediation analysis with PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) was used to determine mediation pathways.Results: Teacher-rated inattention indirectly influenced math addition fluency, subtraction fluency and calculation scores through its effect on visual-spatial WM, only for boys.There was a direct relationship between inattention and math outcomes one year later for girls and boys.Children who displayed better attention had higher WM scores, and children with higher WM scores had stronger scores on math outcomes.Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals for the indirect effects were entirely below zero for boys, for the three math outcomes.WM did not mediate the direct relationship between inattention and reading scores.Discussion: Findings identify inattention and WM as longitudinal predictors for math addition and subtraction fluency and math calculation outcomes one year later, with visual-spatial WM as a significant mediator for boys.Results highlight the close relationship between inattention and WM and their importance in the development of math skills.
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 | 0.019 | 0.204 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.406 | 0.246 |
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".