The emergence of procrastination in early childhood: Relations with executive control and future-oriented cognition.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 396; 175 girls) completed the Preschool Procrastination Scale, the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool Version (Gioia et al., 2003), and the Children's Future Thinking Questionnaire (Mazachowsky & Mahy, 2020). Naturalistic examples of children's procrastination behavior were collected to better understand the domains in which preschool children procrastinated. Results revealed that: (a) procrastination emerges early in preschool, (b) procrastination became more characteristic with age, (c) executive function and future thinking were negatively related to procrastination tendencies, (d) different components of future thinking and executive function predicted younger and older children's procrastination, and (e) children procrastinated in different domains depending on their age and responsibilities. Our results suggest that children's procrastination tendencies increase with age and develop alongside self-regulatory and future-oriented cognitive abilities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".