Input That Contradicts Young Children’s Strategy for Mapping Novel Words Affects Their Phonological and Semantic Interpretation of Other Novel Words
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
Children tend to choose an entity they cannot already label, rather than one they can, as the likely referent of a novel noun. The effect of input that contradicts this strategy on the interpretation of other novel nouns was investigated. In pre- and posttests, 4-year-olds were asked to judge whether novel nouns referred to "name-similar" familiar objects or novel objects (e.g., whether japple referred to an apple or a binder clip). During an intervening treatment phase, they were asked to pick the referents of novel nouns from pairs of familiar objects (Experiments 1 and 3) or were taught subordinate names for familiar objects (Experiment 2). Most resisted the lure of phonological similarity in the pretest but increased selection of name-similar familiar objects over novel ones in the posttest. In Experiment 3, which involved monosyllables that differed in initial phoneme from the familiar words, treatment produced this effect only when accompanied by a rhyme-sensitization procedure. Experiment 2 included two other age groups: 2-year-olds, who were less resistant to phonological similarity in the pretest and responded to the treatment like the 4-year-olds; and adults, who nearly always selected the novel objects in the pretest and posttest. For children, the impact of treatment was positively associated with ability to detect phonological similarity and negatively associated with vocabulary size.
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