Children's Ability to Estimate the Frequency of Single and Repeated Events
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is extremely important when interviewing children about alleged abuse to determine whether the abuse was a single or a repeated occurrence, we have little information about how children judge the frequency of events. The aim of the current study was to examine children's accuracy in providing estimates of event frequency that were numerical (that is, 1, 2, 3, …) and qualitative (that is, once, a few times, or many times). Younger (4- to 5-year-old) and older (6- to 8-year-old) children took part in a single event or an event that was repeated 6 or 11 times. They were interviewed after a short or long delay; some were interviewed a second time. Overall, children were very accurate at judging the frequency of a single event, but much less so for repeated events. Based on our findings, we make two recommendations for professionals trying to establish the frequency of events when interviewing young 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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it