MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366524149 · doi:10.1037/xge0001382

Task features change the relation between math anxiety and number line estimation performance with rational numbers: Two large-scale online studies.

2023· article· en· W4366524149 on OpenAlexaff
Marta K. Mielicki, Eric D. Wilkey, Daniel A. Scheibe, Charles J. Fitzsimmons, Pooja G. Sidney, Elien Bellon, Andrew Ribner, Mojtaba Soltanlou, Isabella Starling‐Alves, Ilse Elise Johanna Ingrid Coolen, Daniel Ansari, Clarissa A. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology General · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsPsycINFOTask (project management)Relation (database)Mathematical anxietyScale (ratio)Numerical cognitionPsychologyAnxietyArithmeticMathematicsCognitionCognitive psychologyComputer scienceMEDLINEData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 3,822), the MA-performance relation was strongest for large whole numbers and fractions, and stronger for symbolic than nonsymbolic fractions. The MA-performance relation was also stronger for smaller relative to larger components, and MA relating to specific number types may be a better predictor of performance than general MA for certain tasks. The relation between MA and estimation performance changes depending on task features, which suggests that MA may relate to certain math skills more than others, which may have implications for how people reason with numerical information and may inform future interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology GeneralSame topicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsFrench-language works237,207