MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1482111283

Extracting Truthful Information From Lies:Emergence of the Expression-Representation Distinction

2000· article· en· W1482111283 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigitalCommons - WayneState (Wayne State University) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpression (computer science)Representation (politics)PsychologySocial psychologyEpistemologyComputer sciencePolitical sciencePhilosophyPoliticsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In three experiments the understanding was studied that a statement's surface meaning may differ from its actual meaning, which is determined by a speaker's intentional states. Children (ages 3-5) were informed of a speaker's deceptive intent, but not the truth. Even 3-year-olds rejected the lie-teller's statement as reflecting his true beliefs and the truth, indicating a basic expression-representation differentiation. Most 4- and 5-year-olds and some 3-year-olds demonstrated more advanced understanding of the expression-representation distinction. They knew that a lie may contain information about a lie~teller's true knowledge state as well as the truth. The expression-representation distinction emerges in the preschool years and lays the foundation for further enhancement in later years.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it