MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984088598 · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00608

Do Young Children Always Say Yes to Yes–No Questions? A Metadevelopmental Study of the Affirmation Bias

2003· article· en· W1984088598 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

VenueChild Development · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyResponse biasChild developmentCognitive developmentCognitionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigated whether yes-no questions would lead to a yes bias in young children. Four experiments were conducted in which 2- to 5-year-olds were asked comprehensible and incomprehensible yes-no questions concerning familiar and unfamiliar objects. Consistent findings were obtained: (a) 2-year-olds displayed a consistent yes bias; (b) 4- and 5-year-olds exhibited no response bias toward comprehensible questions and a nay-saying bias toward incomprehensible questions; and (c) 3-year-olds' results were mixed, suggesting that the age of 3 years is a period of developmental transition in response tendency toward yes-no questions. The findings suggest that yes-no questions are suitable for older children, providing they are comprehensible, but may result in biased results when used with younger children and when incomprehensible.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.255 · 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