Bibliographic record
Abstract
In everyday life both adults and children are faced with the problem of judging who owns an object. Past research has indicated that adults and children may base their decisions on who was seen possessing an object first (the first possessor bias) or the person with whom an initial visual association was created.. The current thesis aimed to investigate this, and ascertain whether children and adults maintain their bias to choose the first possessor of an object as its owner when other competing information regarding ownership is available. Chapters 2 and 3 used between subjects factorial designs in which adults (aged 18 - 60) and children (aged 3 - 4 years) viewed a number of stories of characters possessing objects in a variety of different scenarios. After viewing each story participants were required to judge which character owned the object. Results showed that when adults and children had no information, other than who possessed an object first, they chose the first possessor as the owner of the object. However when other competing information, such as the gender or age stereotype of the object, or who had constructive possession of the object, was available both adults and children disregarded their first possessor bias and made decisions in line with this other information. Chapter 4 used a between subjects factorial design and a mixed factorial design. The aim of the experiments was to ascertain whether adults and children take the history of an object into account when deciding who owns an object. Adults (aged 18 - 60) and children (aged 3 – 4 years) were shown stories in which one character wore and object and another character held an object. Information was given to help participants infer the history of each of the objects in the stories. Following each story participants were asked to judge who owned the object. Results demonstrated that both adults and children take the history of an object into account in their ownership decisions, and privilege this information above other competing information such as visual association, but that adults do this more reliably than children. All the experiments in this thesis demonstrated that when there is no other information available both adults and children base their decisions on who was seen possessing an object first. However when other information is available both adults and children take this into account in their decisions. Adults and children may use the information in order to reconstruct the history of an object to ascertain who had contact with it in the past and therefore who may have a legitimate claim of ownership over it.
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 | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".