MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924670032 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v11n2p24

Attachment Play Related to Piaget's Conservation Task with Parent

2019· article· en· W2924670032 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nobuki Watanabe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsPsychologyAffectionTask (project management)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyPiaget's theory of cognitive developmentCognitive psychologyCognitive developmentCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Piaget's conservation concept still influences many disciplines such as pedagogy and psychology. It is said that this idea is difficult for children to acquire before they are 6 years old if Piaget’s task methods are adhered to. This study aims to verify whether the acquisition of the conservation concept (substance, weight, and volume) can be accelerated through an intentional environmental change (the setting of play related to conservation accompanied by the development of affection with parent). To this end, a single case study was conducted on a 3-year-old child. Specifically, monthly retention tasks (and related content) were executed in the form of a quiz game. The results of the experiment suggested that the conservation concept may be obtained by 3-year-old children. Hence, it may be asserted that play related to conservation accompanied by the formation of attachment with a parent influences the early acquisition of the conservation concepts of substance, weight, and volume.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207