MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034281361 · doi:10.1080/09658211.2010.508749

Children dating childhood memories

2010· article· en· W2034281361 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMemory · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelescoping seriesPsychologyFluencyChildhood amnesiaDevelopmental psychologyChildhood memoryEpisodic memoryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How accurate are children when dating very long-term memories? Chinese and European Canadian 8-, 11-, and 14-year-olds (N=344) recalled and dated memories from before they went to school in a memory fluency task. Parents provided verification of children's memories and age estimates. Across all age and culture groups, a telescoping effect (i.e., events were dated as taking place more recently than they actually did) was found for earlier memories (before 48 months) and a reverse telescoping effect for later memories (after 48 months). Older children showed a greater tendency to telescope earlier memories and a weaker tendency to reverse telescope later memories than did younger children. Euro-Canadian children showed larger reverse telescoping than Chinese children. These are the first systematic findings concerning the accuracy of children's dating of very long-term memories. They shed new light on the phenomenon of telescoping and have implications for research on childhood amnesia.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.271 · 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