Children's Reasoning About Which Episode of a Repeated Event is Best Remembered
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Despite much research into children's ability to report information from an individual episode of a repeated event, their capacity to identify well‐remembered episodes is unknown. Children (n = 177) from Grades 1 to 3 participated in four episodes of a repeated event and were later asked to recall the time that they remembered ‘best’ and then ‘another time.’ Post‐recall, children were asked what they believed ‘the time you remember best’ meant, and how they decided which episode to recall. Older children were better able than younger to understand the prompt and nominate an episode, but children of all ages showed improved ability to produce an episode for discussion when subsequently asked about ‘another time.’ All children struggled to describe their decision‐making processes, suggesting that they had yet to develop sufficient metamemory knowledge for the task. Results suggest that children have difficulty explicitly identifying well‐remembered episodes of repeated events.Copyright © 2016 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it