MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972577870 · doi:10.1080/15248371003700023

Children's Representation of Child and Adult Knowledge

2010· article· en· W1972577870 on OpenAlex
Stanka A. Fitneva

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

VenueJournal of Cognition and Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyKnowledge levelDevelopmental psychologyRelation (database)Child developmentCognitive developmentCognitionMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Do children think that adult knowledge subsumes or only partially overlaps child knowledge? Sixty-four 4- and 6-year-old children were asked either whether a child and an adult know the answers to questions tapping adult- and child-specific knowledge (Experiment 1) or to whom each question should be addressed (Experiment 2). Children were also asked directly about the existence of child-specific knowledge. The experiments provided converging evidence that beliefs about child-specific knowledge are relatively limited among 4-year-olds but become well articulated by age 6. The findings contribute to understanding the development of children's beliefs about the relation between knowledge and age.

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 score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.280 · 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