A Parent-Report Diary Study of Young Children’s Prospective Memory Successes and Failures
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
Although laboratory studies have examined the development of children’s prospective memory (PM) and the factors that influence its performance, much less is known about children’s PM performance and development in their everyday life. The current study used an online parent diary report approach to examine American 2- to 6-year-olds’ PM successes and failures. In an initial session, 206 parents completed a series of questionnaires on their child’s memory and cognition. For the next four days, parents reported instances of PM successes and failures and answered questions about a number of task factors (task motivation, importance to the parent and child, who assigned the PM task, task typicality, and parental assistance). We found that: (1) parents reported children as young as 2 years old had PM successes in daily life and there were no age differences in the number of reported PM successes and failures, (2) parents reported more PM successes than failures, and (3) several factors influenced the likelihood of children’s success in everyday PM tasks, including child motivation and task importance to parents, whereas task typicality and parental assistance were related to PM failure. Finally, we explored the domains of PM successes and failures as well as the type of assistance that parents provided. These results are discussed in relation to past findings of children’s PM in laboratory and naturalistic settings. Parent diary-report methodology is a feasible and efficient alternative to naturalistic laboratory tasks to examine young children’s PM in everyday life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it