Assessment of Hot and Cool Executive Function in Young Children: Age-Related Changes and Individual Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although executive function (EF) is often considered a domain-general cognitive function, a distinction has been made between the "cool" cognitive aspects of EF more associated with dorsolateral regions of prefrontal cortex and the "hot" affective aspects more associated with ventral and medial regions (Zelazo and Mller, 2002). Assessments of EF in children have focused almost exclusively on cool EF. In this study, EF was assessed in 3- to 5-year-old children using 2 putative measures of cool EF (Self-Ordered Pointing and Dimensional Change Card Sort) and 2 putative measures of hot EF (Children's Gambling Task and Delay of Gratification). Findings confirmed that performance on both types of task develops during the preschool period. However, the measures of hot and cool EF showed different patterns of relations with each other and with measures of general intellectual function and temperament. These differences provide preliminary evidence that hot and cool EF are indeed distinct, and they encourage further research on the development of hot EF.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".