MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016468304 · doi:10.1080/02568540109594957

Solitary-Active Play Behavior: A Marker Variable for Maladjustment in the Preschool?

2001· article· en· W2016468304 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Coplan, Cherami Wichmann, Daniel G. Lagacé‐Séguin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Childhood Education · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyTemperamentVocabularyAcademic achievementConstruct (python library)Social psychologyPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the construct of solitary-active play as a behavioral marker for maladjustment in the preschool. One hundred fifty-three children were observed during free play in preschool over a two-week period. Additional measures included parental ratings of child temperament and attitude towards school, teacher ratings of behavior problems, and child interview assessments of vocabulary and academic achievement. Results indicated that, as compared to their peers, children who frequently engaged in solitary-active behaviors were temperamentally less attentive, more difficult to soothe, behaved more shyly, displayed more externalizing problems, performed more poorly on assessments of early academic skills, and had a less positive attitude towards school. Results are discussed in terms of the potential of solitary-active behavior to act as a marker variable for various forms of social and academic maladjustment in the preschool.

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)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations50
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in Childhood EducationSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207