MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280585808 · doi:10.1080/15248372.2022.2072846

Examining Temporal Memory and Flexible Retrieval of Conventional Time Knowledge across Middle to Late Childhood

2022· article· en· W4280585808 on OpenAlex
Thanujeni Pathman, Lina Deker, Christine Coughlin, Simona Ghetti

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognition and Development · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineSemantic memoryPsychologyEpisodic memoryCognitive psychologyVocabularyTask (project management)Working memoryDevelopmental psychologyCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memory for the time associated with past events is critical for our understanding of episodic memory and its development. Relatively little is known about the factors that influence temporal memory development. One such factor examined in the literature is semantic knowledge for time (conventional time knowledge; CTK). Other possible factors include domain general skills (e.g., working memory). The goals of this study were to a) assess temporal memory for past events in middle to late childhood using a naturalistic, yet controlled task, b) examine the relation between temporal memory performance and CTK, c) examine the factors that support the development of conventional time knowledge, and d) test which factors best predict temporal memory performance. Participants included 7-year-olds, 9-year-olds, 11-year-olds and young adults (N = 140). They engaged in naturalistic events in unique locations in the lab over a span of 2–3 hours. One week later, participants were asked to place the events on an arbitrary timeline, and we measured deviations from the precise time that each event took place. Performance on the CTK task, but not age, contributed unique variance to accuracy in the timeline task, replicating findings from previous work. Further, vocabulary and working memory but not inhibitory control or age, were unique predictors of performance on the CTK task. Finally, vocabulary surpassed CTK task performance as a significant predictor of temporal memory. The implications of this work to our understanding of temporal memory, semantic knowledge for time and episodic memory development 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.

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)0.001
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 score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.253 · 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