Estimation of importance: Relative contributions of symbolic and non-symbolic number systems to exact and approximate calculation
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
The topic of how symbolic and non-symbolic number systems relate to exact calculation skill has received great discussion for a number of years now. However, little research has been done to examine how these systems relate to approximate calculation skill. To address this question, performance on symbolic and non-symbolic numeric ordering tasks was examined as predictors of Woodcock Johnson calculation (exact) and computation estimation (approximate) scores among university adults (N = 85, 61 female, Mean age = 21.3, range = 18-49 years). For Woodcock Johnson calculation scores, only the symbolic task uniquely predicted performance outcomes in a multiple regression. For the computational estimation task, only the non-symbolic task uniquely predicted performance outcomes. Symbolic system performance mediated the relation between non-symbolic system performance and exact calculation skill. Non-symbolic system performance mediated the relation between symbolic system performance and approximate calculation skill. These findings suggest that symbolic and non-symbolic number system acuity uniquely relate to exact and approximate calculation ability respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 it