A new acquisition protocol for conducting studies with children: The science camp research experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last 50 years, the study of brain development has brought major discoveries to education and medicine, changing the lives of millions of children and families. However, collecting behavioral and neurophysiological data from children has specific challenges, such as high rates of data loss and participant dropout. We have developed a science camp method to collect data from children using the benefits of positive peer interactions and interactive and engaging activities, to allow researchers to better collect data repeatedly and reliably from groups of children. A key advantage of this approach is that by increasing participant engagement, attention is also increased, thereby increasing data quality, reducing data loss, and lowering attrition rates. This protocol describes the step-by-step procedure for facilitation of a science camp, including behavioral, electrophysiological, and participatory engagement activities. As this method is robust but also flexible, we anticipate that it can also be applied to different demographics and research needs.
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 | 0.087 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.022 |
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".