MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993265069 · doi:10.1002/icd.550

Toddlers' use of cues in a search task

2008· article· en· W1993265069 on OpenAlex
Rachel Keen, Neil E. Berthier, Monica R. Sylvia, Samantha Butler, Patricia K. Prunty, Rachel K Baker

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

VenueInfant and Child Development · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyPoint (geometry)Space (punctuation)Visual searchMotion (physics)Ball (mathematics)Developmental psychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Search for a ball that has undergone hidden motion rapidly improves during the second year of life ( Dev. Psychol. , 2000; 36 :394–401). In three experiments we investigated whether the poor performance of younger toddlers was due to attentional failure by highlighting the major cue for the hidden object. We observed only slight improvement in search behaviour. We performed two other experiments that tested the depth of understanding of 3‐year‐olds in this task and found that their performance was robust to changes in the apparatus and experimental procedures. Overall, the results point to a rapidly developing ability in the second year of life to either reason about space or select the correct motor response in search tasks. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.238 · 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