MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323313387 · doi:10.3390/jintelligence11030050

It Runs in the Family: Testing for Longitudinal Family Flynn Effects

2023· article· en· W4323313387 on OpenAlexaff
Linda Wänström, Patrick O’Keefe, Sean Clouston, Frank D. Mann, Graciela Muñiz‐Terrera, Stacey Voll, Yun Zhang, Scott M. Hofer, Joseph Lee Rodgers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligence · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsInstitute of AgingUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyReading comprehensionLongitudinal studyReading (process)Intelligence quotientMultilevel modelComprehensionLongitudinal dataDemographyCognitionStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Flynn effect refers to increases over time in measured (particularly fluid) intelligence of approximately 3 IQ points per decade. We define the Flynn effect at the family level, using longitudinal data and two new family-level cohort definitions. Multilevel growth curve analyses of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 data showed that children in families with later-born mothers had higher average PIAT math scores, and lower average reading comprehension scores and growth, in young and middle childhood. Children in families where the first child was born later had higher average PIAT math, reading recognition, and reading comprehension scores, as well as larger developmental growth. The latter family-level Flynn effects were of higher magnitudes than the usual individual-level Flynn effect found in previous studies. Our results, showing family level-intercept and slope Flynn effects for both maternal birthyear and first child birthyear, have implications for research aiming to explain the Flynn effect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of IntelligenceSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207