MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Development of Symbolic Representation

2015· other· en· W1552564627 on OpenAlexaff
Tara C. Callaghan, John Corbit

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversitySt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)The SymbolicGestureField (mathematics)Cognitive scienceSymbolic communicationProcess (computing)Computer scienceSociologyEpistemologyPsychologyLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Symbolic representation is fundamentally a communicative behavior that sets humans apart from other species and binds them together in communities and other social groups. This chapter examines the development of symbolic representation, and we restrict our review to studies of symbolic representation in the sense of external symbols used in communication with others. We begin the chapter by considering the varieties of definitions, theoretical approaches and recurring themes that have emerged from classical and contemporary approaches. In the next section, dominant themes from contemporary theory guide our review of the empirical findings from studies of language (including gesture), pretense, and material artifacts (including scale models, pictures, video and maps). We consider findings from comparative research and cultural developmental studies to deepen our understanding of the origin of human symbolic representation. We end the chapter with a consideration of the challenges facing researchers who would like to move the field beyond insightful descriptions of the course of symbolic development, toward process accounts of that development.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207