Emergence of Graphic Symbol Functioning and the Question of Domain Specificity: A Longitudinal Training Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of social scaffolding on the emergence of graphic symbol functioning was explored in a longitudinal training study. Links among graphic, language, and play domains in symbolic development were also investigated. The symbolic functioning of 16 children, who were 28 months at the outset of the study, was assessed in comprehension and production tasks across the three domains at monthly intervals from 28 to 36 months, and again at 42 months. Training was delivered in between monthly assessments during weekly visits. Half of the children received training, which consisted of the experimenter drawing common objects and highlighting the relation between pictures and their referents, for 16 consecutive weeks early in the study (early training, ET). The remaining half received a placebo version of training for these 16 weeks, followed by actual training for 4 weeks in the fifth month (late training, LT). After the first 4 months of training the ET group was found to have accelerated comprehension and production of graphic symbols relative to the LT group. After the fifth month, the LT group reached the same level of graphic symbol performance as the ET group. There were strong positive correlations found among graphic symbol functioning and language and play, and between play and language. These findings support the view that graphic symbolic development can be influenced by cultural scaffolding, that more extensive training is needed early rather than later in development, and that interrelationships exist among symbolic domains.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".