Human–Human Versus Human–Robot Interaction in Piaget’s Liquid and Mass Conservation Performed by 5–6-Year-Old Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research emphasizes the importance of human–robot interaction in psychology of cognitive development. In the experiments conducted, the hypothesis that children’s cognitive comprehension is enhanced by using a robotic experimenter to guide them through the tasks, instead of a human one, was tested. Quantity conservation conceptualization in children aged 5–6 years old was examined by utilizing the Piagetian conservation of liquid and mass tasks, via the use of an electronic tablet device and a robot. The participants were 160 first graders (equal gender representation). Half of the children executed the experiments with a robot experimenter, while the other half executed the experiments with a human experimenter. Two distinct sets of tasks were used. For the conservation of mass, a clay sphere was turned into a lengthy structure, while the conservation of liquid was performed by pouring water from a short-wide glass to a long-narrow one. Pictures, graphics, and sound were used to clarify what was occurring. The results of children guided by a robot experimenter were compared to the results of children guided by a human experimenter, as traditionally conducted. This study reveals that children performed better and were more likely to perceive the concept of conservation when they interacted with a robot experimenter. The evident psychological and educational implications are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".