Children Provide Reasonable, but Imprecise, Temporal Information About a Recently Experienced Event
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Despite considerable interest in children's ability to provide temporal information, there remain many unanswered questions about what children can provide and how to elicit this information. In Study 1, children ( N = 147, aged 5 to 10 years) participated in an activity session. Either shortly after or 1 day later, children completed an interview focused on temporal concepts: duration, temporal distance, day of the week. Children generally provided imprecise temporal information, though there was evidence of a developmental improvement in accuracy. There was little evidence of a negative impact of delay to recall on children's accuracy. In Study 2, children ( N = 139, aged 6 to 12 years) participated in an activity session and 3 days later completed an interview about duration and temporal distance. Overall, accuracy was low, but most estimates were reasonable. The present studies have implications for both what is considered an accurate response and for what degree of temporal precision is reasonable to request from children.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".