Working Memory and Automaticity in Relation to Mental Addition among American Elementary Students
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of working memory load (WML) and automaticity on mental addition through an examination of both task and individual characteristics within the framework of cognitive load theory. Seventy-three fourth-grade students in New York City public schools completed the Digit Span-Backward task of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition, the Math Fluency subtest of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition, and a 24-item computer-assisted addition task. Results showed that working memory load, automaticity, and their interaction had significant effects on mental addition. Automaticity had a differential effect on response time under low and high WML conditions. Results also showed that working memory, math fluency, and their interaction could predict a significant portion of variance in accuracy. However, math fluency was the only significant predictor for mental addition on the measure of response time. The study confirmed the interaction effect between working memory and automaticity and underscored the importance of automaticity in arithmetic learning.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it