Visuo‐spatial play experience: forerunner of visuo‐spatial achievement in preadolescent and adolescent boys and girls?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This cross‐sectional study explored whether participation, from early childhood, in play involving different cognitive abilities predicts visuo‐spatial achievement at ages 9, 12, and 15. Based on parental assessment, prior and present practice of spatial manipulation play was found to be consistently more frequent in boys than in girls; the reverse held true for verbal expression play. Whereas boys did not significantly outperform girls in three visuo‐spatial tasks, girls were superior on a contrastive vocabulary task. In general, with IQ statistically controlled, regression analyses showed that estimated past and present spatial manipulation play predicted both genders' proficiency in the water‐level task and Embedded Figures Test, as did mothers' socioeconomic status for Block Design performance. Contrastingly, a negative relation was established between spatial manipulation play and vocabulary scores. Similar to the activity‐ability association often identified among adults, the relation established here between spatial play experience and visuo‐spatial ability was only modest. Further research should aim at more definitive conclusions through augmenting both diversity in the visuo‐spatial skills measured and sophistication in play behaviour appraisal. Copyright © 2003 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".