MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1962050152 · doi:10.1002/dev.21108

The Development of end‐ and beginning‐state comfort in a cup manipulation task

2013· article· en· W1962050152 on OpenAlexaff
Sara M. Scharoun Benson, Pamela J. Bryden

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychobiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)Motor planningObject (grammar)Action (physics)Developmental psychologyDevelopmental ageCognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

End-state comfort (ESC) is the tendency to assume comfortable postures at the end of simple object manipulation rather than at the start; and therefore has been used to assess the behavioral effects of motor planning. Adult-like patterns have been observed at age 9. Observations can extend to joint-action, such that adults consider the beginning-state comfort (BSC) of another, without sacrificing ESC; however, trends in children have yet to be delineated. This study investigated the development of ESC and BSC in a cup manipulation task. Three to 12-year-olds and adults were asked to pick up a cup and (1) pour a glass of water or (2) pass it to the researcher to pour. Paralleling previous findings, adult-like patterns of ESC were observed at age 9. Adding to the literature, adult-like evidence of BSC emerged at the age of 7. Therefore, 7-year-olds consider another's BSC; however, cannot facilitate ESC until age 9.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychobiologySame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207