MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091251508 · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31

Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework.

2008· review· en· W2091251508 on OpenAlexafffund
Nancy Garon, Susan E. Bryson, Isabel M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Bulletin · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityNova Scotia Health AuthorityIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDalhousie UniversityNational Institutes of HealthNova Scotia Health Research Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyConstruct (python library)Executive functionsComponent (thermodynamics)Period (music)Focus (optics)Early childhoodDevelopmental psychologyFunction (biology)Cognitive psychologyWorking memoryWarrantUnitary stateChild developmentCognitive scienceCognitionNeuroscienceComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last 2 decades, major advances have been made in understanding the development of executive functions (EFs) in early childhood. This article reviews the EF literature during the preschool period using an integrative framework. The framework adopted considers EF to be a unitary construct with partially dissociable components (A. Miyake et al., 2000). The authors focus on 3 EF components: working memory, response inhibition, and shifting. For the present purposes, the central executive is conceived of as a central attention system that is involved in all EF component operations. Research to date suggests that elementary forms of the core EF components are present early during the preschool period. Changes in EF during the latter half of the preschool period appear to be due to the development of attention and integration of component EFs. Finally, the review outlines a number of areas that warrant further investigation if researchers are to move forward in understanding early EF development.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2,640
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological BulletinSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207