MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1828735200 · doi:10.1111/mbe.12051

Mental Rotation With Tangible Three‐Dimensional Objects: A New Measure Sensitive to Developmental Differences in 4‐ to 8‐Year‐Old Children

2015· article· en· W1828735200 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMind Brain and Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpatial Cognition and Navigation
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityCarleton UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental rotationMeasure (data warehouse)Rotation (mathematics)PsychologyTest (biology)Spatial abilityCognitive psychologyMental developmentDevelopmental psychologyCognitionComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT There is an emerging consensus that spatial thinking is fundamental to later success in math and science. The goals of this study were to design and evaluate a novel test of three‐dimensional ( 3D ) mental rotation for 4‐ to 8‐year‐old children ( N = 165) that uses tangible 3D objects. Results revealed that the measure was both valid and reliable and indicated steady growth in 3D mental rotation between the ages of 4 and 8. Performance on the measure was highly related to success on a measure of two‐dimensional ( 2D ) mental rotation, even after controlling for executive functioning. Although children as young as 5 years old performed above chance, 3D mental rotation appears to be a difficult skill for most children under the age of 7, as indicated by frequent guessing and difficulty with mirror objects. The test is a useful new tool for studying the development of 3D mental rotation in young children.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.208 · 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