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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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