Do Intellectually Gifted Children Have Better Planning Skills?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to examine whether intellectually gifted children had better planning skills than their chronological-age controls and what processing skills may explain these differences. A total of 35 intellectually gifted Chinese children (25 boys and 10 girls; Mage = 12.77 years) and 39 chronological-age controls (27 boys and 12 girls; Mage = 12.89 years) participated in this study. They were assessed on three measures of operational planning (Planned Codes, Planned Connections, and Planned Search), on a measure of action planning (Crack the Code), and on measures of processing speed, working memory, and attention. Results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed first that the two groups differed in Crack the Code (accuracy and first move time) and in Planned Connections. Whereas processing speed explained the group differences in Planned Connections, none of the processing skills were able to eliminate the group differences in Crack the Code. Taken together, these findings suggest that gifted children have better action planning, which allows them to perform better than controls in tasks that require complex problem solving and evaluation of different scenarios and solutions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".