Beliefs of students talented in academics, music, and dance concerning the heritability of human abilities in these fields
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
This study assessed the heritability beliefs of talented students concerning the heritability of human abilities, more specifically the extent to which these talented laypersons endorsed the strong environmentalist ideology promoted in the social sciences and the media. Three groups of talented students (academics, music, dance) assessed the heritability of three sets of human abilities (cognitive, musical, physical), as well as motivational characteristics, for a total of 22 items. Six formal hypotheses were formulated; four of them were confirmed. The results showed that a majority of the respondents held middle‐of‐the‐road positions, recognizing a significant causal role for both nature and nurture. However, the very large standard deviations indicated the presence of substantial numbers of students toward both extremes of the heredity‐environment continuum. Explanations for such diversity in beliefs remain elusive in the literature. Significant differences in degree of perceived heritability were observed between ability domains as well as within each of them. A series of follow‐up studies are proposed.
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 | 0.000 | 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