Development of inhibitory control in 5-year-olds in preschool education: influence on the quality of their engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an approach focused on the children's overall development, inhibitory control is present in various forms (motor, emotional, verbal and cognitive inhibition) and is thought to influence this development. The quality of the children's engagement with his teacher, peers and learning also influences his overall development. The objective of this study of 28 five to six years old from preschool’s classroom was to determine the reciprocal links between the quality of the children's engagement and the development of inhibitory control. Teachers coming from two different School Service Centres were recruited through a presentation of the project. The level of inhibitory control was then assessed by collecting observations in their classes through NEPSY II from whom 28 children aged five to six years old were selected. The quality of children's engagement was finally assessed with the in CLASS tool. The results suggest a link between children's level of inhibitory control development and their level of engagement. The discussion revolves around reflecting on the consideration of the quality of a five-year-old preschooler's engagement as support for the development of their inhibitory control; a distinction between boys and girls will be highlighted. These results highlight the benefic aspect of implementing inhibitory control pedagogy to support the children’s level of inhibitory control and engagement.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".