MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107192858 · doi:10.5539/ass.v6n10p20

Gender Differences in Developmental Tasks of 3 Years-old Boys and Girls

2010· article· en· W2107192858 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Asif Malik, Muhamamd Sarwar

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitive developmentMotor skillTest (biology)CognitionChild development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to compare the developmental tasks of 3 years-old boys and girls. The study was delimited to only one private school of Lahore city. Sample of 30 boys and 30 girls were selected randomly. A checklist was developed by reviewing related literature and adapting Portage Early Education Programme Checklist Published by Nfer Nelson for 0-6 years-old children. The checklist was comprised of three categories such as motor development, cognitive development and social development. Each category was consisted of 33, 16 and 19 items respectively. Students were observed, interviewed and were asked to perform tasks in order to collect the data. Data were analyzed in terms of percentages and t-test. Results of the study revealed that there was no difference among 3 years-old boys and girls in motor development, cognitive development and social 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207