MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3130753351 · doi:10.1111/bjdp.12370

The influence of culture on children’s immediate and delayed retrieval

2021· article· en· W3130753351 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hongyuan Qi, Kim P. Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Developmental Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyRecallDevelopmental psychologySocial memoryCognitionCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Culture shapes children's memories. However, scant attention has been given to the influence of culture on specific memory stages. Thus, we conducted two controlled experiments to examine cultural differences in memory recall at immediate and delayed retrieval phases. In Studies 1 and 2 (n = 217), 7- to 10-year-old Chinese and Euro-Canadian children watched a story involving both social- and individual-focused scenarios. Participants then recalled the story immediately afterwards (Study 1) and 5-7 days later (Studies 1 and 2). Findings reveal that Chinese children accurately reported more details from the social-focused events than did their Euro-Canadian counterparts in the immediate interview, and this result was replicated after a delay in both studies. Moreover, as expected, within-country comparisons showed that Euro-Canadian children had better memory for individual- than for social-focused events in both studies. Chinese children, however, showed better memory for social- than for individual-focused events only in the immediate interview in Study 1; their delayed retrieval was not affected by event focus. These findings reveal that cultural variations in memory are evident in both immediate and delayed retrieval. Implications for future research are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Developmental PsychologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207