With support, children can accurately sequence within‐event components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Accurate event sequencing can add critical detail to a child's account. However, our knowledge of sequencing in childhood to date primarily centers on distinct events separated by time. Sequencing a single event's components is also important, perhaps particularly in a forensic context. In two experiments, we explored children's ability to recall the sequence of a past event using a variety of prompts. In Experiment 1, 124 children (6–8 years) and Experiment 2, 96 children (6–8 years) attended a 45‐min workshop with four (Exp. 1) or five (Exp. 2) distinct components. Children were asked to sequence the components using different retrieval strategies (Exp. 1 within‐subjects; Exp. 2 between‐subjects). Children had difficulty reporting within‐event sequential order in response to open‐ended prompts but with sufficient visual supports, children were able to provide accurate information about the sequencing of within‐event components.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".