MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206052679 · doi:10.1002/acp.3915

What is the source of preschool children's memories of events from their own lives?

2022· article· en· W4206052679 on OpenAlexafffund
Elena Nicoladis, Connie Svob, Lisa Smithson

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Cognitive Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyChildhood amnesiaDevelopmental psychologyEvent (particle physics)Autobiographical memoryEyewitness testimonyCognitionCognitive psychologyChildhood memoryRecallEpisodic memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In experimental tasks, preschool children sometimes mistakenly attribute memories to themselves rather than external sources, with decreasing source errors between 4‐ and 5‐years of age. In this research, we tested whether these developmental changes are also observed in spontaneously generated memories of personal life events. 4‐ and 5‐year olds generated life event memories and provided age estimates for when they took place. The children at both ages most often mentioned events that they could plausibly remember and some memories from external sources, including vicarious memories and events beyond their lifespan. Parents affirmed the accuracy of their children's memories and reported that some events were only told to or were imagined by the children. Our findings suggest that preschool children most often report events that they themselves remember and occasionally include events likely originating from external sources. These results add to the evidence showing that children's memories for events can be accurate.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Cognitive PsychologySame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207