MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126737039 · doi:10.1177/1363461503040001005

Are Children with Imaginary Playmates and Children Said to Remember Previous Lives Cross-Culturally Comparable Categories?

2003· article· en· W2126737039 on OpenAlexaff
Antonia Mills

Bibliographic record

VenueTranscultural Psychiatry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthUniversity of DelhiUniversity of Virginia
KeywordsThe ImaginaryPsychologySample (material)Developmental psychologyCross-culturalSocial psychologySociologyAnthropologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some 15-66% of children in western countries talk about imaginary playmates; in India only 0.2% of children are said to remember a previous life. Both phenomena occur from the age of 30 months to 60-90 months. This article explores whether the two phenomena are cross-culturally comparable categories. The article describes a study of the psychological characteristics of a sample of 15 children said to remember a previous life in India, compared with a matched sample; and compares it with a sample of 15 children with imaginary playmates and a matched sample from Charlottesville, Virginia. No significant differences between the target group and the comparison group were found in either culture, suggesting that both phenomena are normal. One case of an American child with an imaginary playmate and one case of a child in India who is said to remember a previous life are described, using a video-recording of the child's dialogue.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranscultural PsychiatrySame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207