The effects of elaboration strategy training on source monitoring ability: an investigation of strategy deficiencies in preschool children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the effects of relational elaboration strategy training on 4-yearolds' source monitoring ability.Eighty 4-year-olds were randomly assigned to one of four elaboration conditions: training, instruction, and two no-instruction control conditions.Children were presented with a source memory task in each of two phases.Children in the training condition received extensive relational elaboration training in phase 1 but no explicit prompting in phase 2. Children in the instruction condition were instructed to use elaboration in phase 2 after receiving no strategy instruction in phase 1.The two noinstruction control groups did not receive strategy instructions in either phase.Training resulted in superior performance compared to no-instructions in phase 1, however, the performance advantage for trained children was not entirely maintained in phase 2. Specifically, some of the trained children continued to be competent relational elaboration users whereas others displayed either a production or a utilization deficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".