MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Separating the Fish From the Sharks: A Longitudinal Study of Preschool Response Inhibition

2012· article· en· W1501785222 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra A. Wiebe, Tiffany D. Sheffield, Kimberly Andrews Espy

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyResponse inhibitionDevelopmental psychologyCognitionCognitive developmentTask (project management)Longitudinal studyChild developmentWorking memoryShort-term memoryFish <Actinopterygii>Neuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of response inhibition was investigated using a computerized go/no-go task, in a lagged sequential design where 376 preschool children were assessed repeatedly between 3.0 and 5.25 years of age. Growth curve modeling was used to examine change in performance and predictors of individual differences. The most pronounced change was observed between 3 and 3.75 years. Better working memory and general cognitive ability were related to more accurate performance at all ages, but relations with speed changed with age, where better cognitive skills were initially related to slower responding, but faster responding at later ages. Boys responded more quickly and were more accurate on go trials, whereas girls were better able to withhold responding on no-go trials.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations172
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207