Interviewing young children: Effects of probe structures and focus of rapport-building talk on the qualities of young children's eyewitness statements.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quatre variations de la « Step-Wise Interview » (Yuille, Hunter, Joffe et Zaparniuk, 1993) ont ete evaluees afin d'evaluer les effets sur les jeunes enfants de temoignage oculaire. Des enfants âges de 3 a 5 ans et de 5 a 8 ans ont assiste a des narrations d'une histoire, puis ils ont ete assignes de facon aleatoire a des protocoles d'entrevue. Les structures de sondage et de concentration de la parole au cours de la construction des rapports ont ete manipulees. Comparativement aux enfants plus âges, les enfants plus jeunes relataient moins d'information, etaient moins exacts et moins capables de resister a la suggestion. Les enfants plus jeunes etaient moins exacts lorsqu'on leur demandait des questions directes et qu'on leur donnait un exercice de rappel d'un evenement passe particulier. Les enfants plus âges etaient moins influences par les caracteristiques de l'entrevue. L'ambiguite dans les declarations des enfants provenait de l'utilisation par les enfants de pronoms ambigus. Aucun protocole n'etait superieur quant au risque de suggestibilite.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".