How Are Symbols and Nonsymbolic Numerical Magnitudes Related? Exploring Bidirectional Relationships in Early Numeracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT What is the nature of the relationship between different lower‐level numerical skills and their role in developing arithmetic skills? We consider the hypothesis of a reciprocal relationship between the development of symbolic (e.g., Arabic numerals) and nonsymbolic (e.g., arrays of objects) numerical magnitude processing. Evidence for bidirectional relationships between symbolic and nonsymbolic numerical magnitude skill development is examined. Overall, present evidence is more indicative of an influence of symbolic numerical magnitude skills on the development of nonsymbolic numerical magnitude skills than vice versa. Looking forward, methodological issues pertinent to measuring the direction of such relationships are discussed. Also discussed is the important role that training studies need to play to further understand the complex relationships between basic number skills, and in turn their relationship with arithmetic. It is important that assumptions about relationships between lower and higher‐level cognitive skills are tested empirically and that seemingly counterintuitive relationships are given serious consideration.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".