MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075164166 · doi:10.1080/87565641.2010.494751

Sequence Imitation and Reaching Measures of Executive Control: A Longitudinal Examination in the Second Year of Life

2010· article· en· W2075164166 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra A. Wiebe, Angela F. Lukowski, Patricia J. Bauer

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neuropsychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsPerseverationImitationPsychologyExecutive functionsAttentional controlControl (management)Task (project management)Cognitive psychologySequence (biology)CognitionDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite increasing interest in the early development of executive control, few assessment tools are available for use in the second year of life. At 15 and 20 months, children completed a task battery that included reaching and sequence imitation tasks expected to require executive control. With age, children showed reduced perseveration and increased ability to resist interference across trials and from distractors. At each age, A-not-B with invisible displacement was correlated with one of the sequence imitation tasks modified to increase executive control demands. Correlations between child performance on individual tasks at 15 and 20 months were generally low.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations39
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeuropsychologySame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207