Symbolic number skills predict growth in nonsymbolic number skills in kindergarteners.
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
There is currently considerable discussion about the relative influences of evolutionary and cultural factors in the development of early numerical skills. In particular, there has been substantial debate and study of the relationship between approximate, nonverbal (approximate magnitude system [AMS]) and exact, symbolic (symbolic number system [SNS]) representations of number. Here we examined several hypotheses concerning whether, in the earliest stages of formal education, AMS abilities predict growth in SNS abilities, or the other way around. In addition to tasks involving symbolic (Arabic numerals) and nonsymbolic (dot arrays) number comparisons, we also tested children's ability to translate between the 2 systems (i.e., mixed-format comparison). Our data included a sample of 539 kindergarten children (M = 5.17 years, SD = .29), with AMS, SNS, and mixed-comparison skills assessed at the beginning and end of the academic year. In this way, we provide, to the best of our knowledge, the most comprehensive test to date of the direction of influence between the AMS and SNS in early formal schooling. Results were more consistent with the view that SNS abilities at the beginning of kindergarten lay the foundation for improvement in both AMS abilities and the ability to translate between the 2 systems. It is important to note that we found no evidence to support the reverse. We conclude that, once one acquires a basic grasp of exact number symbols, it is this understanding of exact number (and perhaps repeated practice therewith) that facilitates growth in the AMS. Though the precise mechanism remains to be understood, these data challenge the widely held view that the AMS scaffolds the acquisition of the SNS. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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