MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“This Is a Bad Dog, You Know…”: Constructing Shared Meanings During Sibling Pretend Play

2005· article· en· W1975597674 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

VenueChild Development · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFirstbornPsychologySiblingDevelopmental psychologyMeaning (existential)Context (archaeology)Construct (python library)Sibling relationshipSocial psychologyBirth order

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction of shared meanings in play, pretense enactment, internal state language, and sibling relationship quality were investigated in 40 kindergarteners with an older (M age = 7.10 years) or younger (M age = 3.6 years) sibling. Dyadic strategies to construct shared meanings (e.g., extensions, building on) were positively associated with frequency of pretense and internal state language. Developmental differences indicated that older dyads used more shared meaning strategies, whereas younger dyads engaged in non-maintenance behaviors (i.e., disruptions to flow of play). Furthermore, firstborn kindergarteners used more non-maintenance behaviors, whereas second-born kindergarteners extended partner's ideas. Findings highlight the sibling relationship as a context for illuminating social understanding and relationship dynamics during pretend play.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.263
Teacher spread0.249 · 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