MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965945249 · doi:10.1207/s15327078in0304_06

The Effect of the Number of A Trials on Performance on the A‐Not‐B Task

2002· article· en· W1965945249 on OpenAlexafffund
Stuart Marcovitch, Philip David Zelazo, Mark A. Schmuckler

Bibliographic record

VenueInfancy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)Random errorCognitive psychologyReflection (computer programming)Developmental psychologyStatisticsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The A‐not‐B error (Piaget, 1954), which occurs when infants search perseveratively on reversal trials in a delayed‐response task, is one of the most widely studied phenomena in developmental psychology. Nonetheless, the effect of A‐trial experience on the probability and magnitude of this error remains unclear. In this study, 9‐month‐old infants were tested at location A until they searched correctly on 1, 6, or 11 A trials. Results revealed an effect of A trials on the proportion of infants who erred on the first B trial, and on the number of errors prior to a correct search at B (i.e., the error run). These effects were asymptotic, or U‐shaped, consistent with a dual‐process model according to which A‐trial experience increases habit strength but also provides opportunities for reflection on task structure.

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)0.018
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfancySame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207