Individual differences in time of day preference, cognitive performance and behavioral problems in early adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing literature from the adult research suggests that performance is at its peak when there is synchrony between chronotype and task demands. This is the first study to assess the importance of synchrony for cognitive function, specifically for intelligence assessment and Executive Function (EF) in young adolescents. 11 to 14 year olds were initially classified as Morning or Evening types and then assessed at either optimal or non-optimal times of day on subtests of both crystallized and fluid intelligence, as well as on four EF measures. Also behavioral adjustment of Morning and Evening types was assessed using the Child Behavior Check-List (CBCL) and a self-report sleep questionnaire. Performance on fluid intelligence tests and most EF-measures of working memory, affective decision-making and response inhibition showed a synchrony effect; performance was substantially better at optimal compared to non-optimal times of day. In addition, adjustment ratings suggest increased levels of maladaptive behavior for adolescents who are Evening types, relative to adolescents who are Morning types. In conclusion, adolescents tested at their non-optimal times of day may be at an increased risk for poor academic performance, and Evening-type adolescents may be at an increased risk for poor behavioral adjustment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".