ArticleJournal of Intelligence2025
Investigating the Predictive Performance of Process Data and Result Data in Complex Problem Solving Using the Conditional Gradient Boosting Algorithm.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to examine the predictive performance of process data and result data in complex problem-solving skills using the conditional gradient boosting algorithm. For this purpose, data from 915 participants of the 2012 cycle of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) were utilized. Process data were obtained from the log file of the first question in the climate control unit task included in the problem-solving assessment of PISA 2012. Various cognitive and affective attributes from the same assessment were used as the result data. According to the results, (1) process data demonstrated a moderate, result data demonstrated a moderate-to-good, and process + result data demonstrated a good prediction performance. (2) The most effective variables were the VOTAT (vary-one-thing-at-a-time) strategy score and total time in process data; the mathematical literacy and reading literacy scores in result data; and the mathematical literacy and VOTAT strategy score in process + result data. The dominance of the mathematical literacy has been noteworthy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.