“This is a mailbox, right?”: Associations of play materials with siblings’ and friends’ shared meanings during pretend play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Play materials designed to enhance children’s pretense were investigated; namely, how the specific characteristics of the play sets (thematically open-ended village set vs thematically closed-ended train set) influenced children’s play communication regarding their co-construction of shared meanings. Participants included 44 7-year-old focal children playing with both play sets with an older or younger sibling and a same-age friend. Play set differentially impacted the type of shared meanings children co-constructed; specifically, the village set promoted more simple strategies (e.g. descriptions) and clarifications (e.g. questions), and the train set facilitated more prosocial behavior (e.g. helping), regardless of play partner. Friends were more likely to initiate play ideas and engage in disruptive behavior (e.g. control, aggression) with the train versus the village. The pattern of findings indicated that children’s play communications may be associated with the specific type of props and that all materials designed for pretense do not enhance it in the same way.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".