MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Brain-Based Account of the Development of Rule Use in Childhood

2006· article· en· W2140614799 on OpenAlexaff
Silvia A. Bunge, Philip David Zelazo

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Directions in Psychological Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPrefrontal cortexStimulus (psychology)CognitionCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceDevelopmental psychologyCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to follow explicit rules improves dramatically during the course of childhood, but relatively little is known about the changes in brain structure and function that underlie this behavioral improvement. Drawing from neuroscientific studies in human adults and other animals, as well as from an emerging literature in developmental cognitive neuroscience, we propose a brain-based account of the development of rule use in childhood. This account focuses on four types of rules represented in different parts of the prefrontal cortex: simple rules for reversing stimulus–reward associations, pairs of conditional stimulus–response rules (both univalent and bivalent), and higher-order stimulus–response rules for selecting among task sets. It is hypothesized that the pattern of developmental changes in rule use reflects the different rates of development of specific regions within the prefrontal cortex.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations429
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Directions in Psychological ScienceSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207