Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Approximately a decade earlier, 39 adolescents (3–5 years old at the time of event occurrence) were interviewed about stressful injuries serious enough to require hospital emergency room treatment. Parent and/or other witnesses were also interviewed to provide a record against which children's recall was compared. Prior to the current follow‐up, the adolescents had varying numbers of interviews (2–5), and half had been interviewed 5 years previously, whereas the remainder had not been interviewed for 8 or more years. In spite of the long delay since injury and the young age of the adolescents at the time, their recall of their injury was still excellent in terms of completeness, unique narrative detail, and accuracy, although there was a small decrease in accuracy. However, recall of hospital treatment was poorer and showed significant deterioration over time. In addition, the presence of an interview after 5 years (halfway through the 10‐year delay) as well as the number of interviews had no significant effect on 10‐year recall of either event, although more interviews tended to make free recall of the injury more detailed.Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".