Bibliographic record
Abstract
Piaget’s ideas have significantly influenced education and psychology, particularly the concept of conservation, which he had proposed as being acquired during the concrete operational stage. However, research conducted after Piaget found that children under the age of 6 are unable to understand his concept of conservation. However, more recent studies have found that three-year-olds may be able to acquire this concept, even when tested using the same tasks. But, this study addresses the issues of “fixity” and “reliability” for the concept of conservation. Then, the robustness (fixity and reliability) of Piaget’s concept of conservation (numbers/length) was examined by observing a four-year-old child who demonstrated the possible acquisition of this concept at the age 3, in this study. It was found that the child was able to robustly maintain the concept. Therefore, the study shows the possibility of accelerated cognitive development for Piaget’s concept of conservation. The reason may be that younger children have higher intelligence than those in previous generations. And, the grounds may be that of the influence of gene-environment interaction.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 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 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".