Cracking the code of place value: The relationship between place and value takes years to master.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Place value, which underlies the meanings of multidigits, encompasses the principle of position and base-10 rules. To understand 65, one needs to know that the digits 6 and 5 occupy different positions and thus represent ordered values of different magnitudes (i.e., the principle of position) and that the value of each position is determined by base-10 rules (i.e., the rightmost position is 100, followed by 101, 102, etc.). Without the principle of position, children cannot construct meanings for multidigits. Previous studies have shown that children do not know the exact value of digit positions until the early elementary school years, but less is known about the acquisition of positional knowledge for multidigits. To study when and how children construct a relationship between position and value, we explore when children begin to know that the leftmost digit represents the largest value and whether such knowledge relates to learning number names. Children ages 4 to 7 years, from primarily Caucasian, middle-class families were asked to compare different pairs of multidigits. Some comparisons (e.g., 12 vs. 21) required knowledge of positional property, and some did not (e.g., 35 vs. 36). We found that as a group, 6-year-old children could recruit positional knowledge to compare multidigits. We also found that children who knew the number names of both multidigits in a comparison pair were above chance on multidigit comparison. Our results shed light on the developmental steps toward acquiring place-value notation and highlight a role of learning number names for learning positional property of the place-value notation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".