MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411427886 · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1573107

Longitudinal relations of executive functions to academic achievement and wellbeing in adolescence

2025· article· en· W4411427886 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Jennifer Kitil, Adele Diamond, Martin Guhn, Kimberly A. Schonert‐Reichl

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsLearning PartnershipUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaHawn Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyExecutive functionsAcademic achievementDevelopmental psychologyLife satisfactionPsychological interventionCognitionCompetence (human resources)Longitudinal studyClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Executive functions (EFs) are essential for cognitive, social, and emotional competence and have important implications for developmental outcomes across the lifespan. Limited research has explored how EFs relate to academic achievement and well-being specifically in adolescence over time. This study investigated relations of EFs to grade point average (GPA) and well-being (life satisfaction, depressive symptoms) from early to late adolescence. Methods Data were collected using multiple methods from 65 students in 4th and 5th grades and then again in 11th and 12th grades. Results Results revealed that EFs and depressive symptoms in early adolescence predicted GPA eight years later. EFs and life satisfaction were also correlated in late adolescence. Discussion Given the malleability of EFs, these findings suggest early interventions to enhance EFs may improve academic achievement in high school.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in EducationSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207