Drawing as a Process of Psychic Mediation Along the Child´s Developmental Trajectory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The intrapsychic process of resorting to the symbolic is innate and prepares the child for the organization of his internal world. Throughout the child's developmental trajectory, its playful projective expression, allows us to assess the psychographically internalized stages of development. The present study aims to evaluate the mental representation of the concept of symbolism, size, and perspective of designed percepts along the developmental trajectory (age range from 4 to 12 years). METHODS: Patients were invited to produce two drawings depicting a Healthy Tooth and an Unhealthy Tooth. The qualitative content grid for the analysis of the drawings was originally designed to study the pictorial representations found in the sample. However, in this article, we only intend to present the results obtained regarding Symbolism, Size and Perspective categories that are part of the content analysis grid. RESULTS: Regarding the Symbolism Category, most respondents between 4 and 6 years of age, pictorially represented an Unrealistic Tooth, and from 10 years onwards there is a marked decrease in this pictorial (Un)Realism. Regarding the Size of Teeth Category, from 8 years old onwards the drawings seem to increase in terms of their dimension. When it comes to Perspective Category, the percept drawn in a 2D perspective clearly prevails, regardless of age. CONCLUSION: Results obtained in this study show that the mental representation of (Un)Healthy teeth are early internalized during childhood and the stages of psychographic development seem to be reliable indicators of the development of the mental representation of the child´s symbolism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".