Challenges in Developmental Psychology Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic brought a series of restructurings necessary for research in Developmental Psychology. The aim of the manuscript is to discuss adaptations we made in our research in this context during the COVID-19 pandemic and to present strategies to adequate research protocols originally designed to occur in person. Although some contexts do not allow the continuity of studies, research at this time can bring essential contributions in this extreme period. This article explores the strategies for adapting recruitment procedures, suggesting dissemination platforms, and using social networks for this purpose. Guidelines are suggested for conducting non-face-to-face interviews with caregivers, ways of assessing the interaction of the mother-child pairs, and problematizing ethical issues. The procedures for returning the results, an ethical researcher commitment, may be improved by resources such as automatic reports. Besides, strategies for better dissemination of the results for the participants are suggested.
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 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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 it