MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402155403 · doi:10.34985/g4541-5901-1965-q

RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARAMETERS OF ADOLESCENT OCHULOGRAPHY WITH THE PECULIARITY OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS WHEN READING INSTRUCTIONS ON THE INTERNET

2021· article· ru· W4402155403 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Е.И. Николаева, Н.В. Сутормина

Bibliographic record

VenueVestnik psihofiziologii. · 2021
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychology of Development and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemorizationWorking memoryReading (process)PsychologyConstruct (python library)Executive functionsForgettingCognitive psychologyCognitionTask (project management)Perspective (graphical)Inhibitory controlControl (management)Computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Чтение инструкции - необходимая составляющая процесса понимания задачи, поставленной перед учащимся. Её значимость повышается при расширении самостоятельности в процессе обучения и повышении ответственности за него. Однако чтение инструкции обычно рассматривается с точки зрения того, как сконструировать её, а не с точки зрения человека, её читающего. Психологическим конструктом, позволяющим эффективно понимать инструкцию, можно считать когнитивный контроль, задача которого - приводить поведение в соответствие текущим задачам. Когнитивный контроль является частью исполнительных функций, и включает рабочую память и тормозный контроль. Цель исследования: изучить связь параметров окулографии подростков с особенностью исполнительных функций при чтении инструкции в интернете. Для оценки параметров окулографии использовался канадский айтрекер Gazepoint GP3 HD. Для оценки параметров рабочей памяти была использована компьютеризированная методика (Разумникова, Николаева, 2019), предназначенная для запоминания зрительных объектов, представленных на экране компьютера. В качестве испытуемых были 45 подростков (средний возраст 13,7±2,1 лет); из них 18 девочек и 27 мальчиков. Был проведён регрессионный анализ. Качество чтения инструкции в интернете в полной мере опирается на уровень сформированности исполнительных функций подростка: чем выше тормозные процессы и менее выражен в рабочей памяти механизм забывания как следствие воспроизведения, тем чаще человек фиксируется на тексте, фиксации осуществляются дольше, и тем реже он возвращается к уже прочитанному тексту. К Abstract. Reading the instructions is a necessary part of the process of understanding the task assigned to the student. Its importance increases with the expansion of independence in the learning process and increased responsibility for it. However, reading an instruction is usually viewed from the perspective of how to construct it, not from the perspective of the person reading it. A psychological construct that allows you to effectively understand instructions is cognitive control, the task of which is to bring behavior in line with current tasks. Cognitive control is part of executive function and includes working memory and inhibitory control. Purpose of the study: to study the relationship between the parameters of oculography in adolescents and the peculiarity of executive functions when reading instructions on the Internet. To assess the oculography parameters, we used the Canadian Gazepoint GP3 HD eye tracker. To assess the parameters of working memory, a computerized technique was used (Razumnikova, Nikolaeva, 2019) designed to memorize visual objects presented on a computer screen. The subjects were 45 adolescents (mean age 13.7 ± 2.1 years); 18 of them are girls and 27 are boys. Regression analysis was performed. The quality of reading instructions on the Internet fully relies on the level of formation of the adolescent's executive functions: the higher the inhibitory processes and the less pronounced in the working memory the forgetting mechanism as a result of reproduction, the more often a person is fixed on the text, fixations take longer, and the less often he returns to the already the text read.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVestnik psihofiziologii.Same topicPsychology of Development and EducationFrench-language works237,207