Bibliographic record
Abstract
This database contains cognitive testing data from healthy young adults (aged 18-40) who participated in a randomized trial of online working memory training compared to both active and passive control groups. All participants are English speaking, and data were collected at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, between 2015 and 2016. <br>Participants were recruited via printed advertisements distributed throughout the community. Study involvement included completing cognitive tests of general intelligence, fluid intelligence, and working memory both before and after approximately 6 weeks of online working memory training, processing speed training (active control condition), or no contact with experimenters. Participants also completed several questionnaires regarding demographic and psychological variables. Functional and structural neuroimaging data was also collected before and after the training period for those assigned to the working memory training group and the processing speed active control group. Of the 107 participants that consented to participate, a total of 76 were included in the final analyses. <br>The University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board approved this study, and all participants provided written informed consent.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.805 | 0.037 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".