Young flames: The effects of childhood exposure to fire on adult attitudes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Successful use of fire has been essential to survival throughout the majority of human historyan environmental pressure that may have led to cognitive mechanisms dedicated to attaining mastery of fire manipulation and control.Concordant with this hypothesis is the fact that, despite its inherent danger, the frivolous use of fire remains firmly embedded within modern societies; conversely, in societies where fire is used for utilitarian purposes, ethnographic reports suggest that fire is considered mundane.The Exposure Hypothesis holds that the attraction to fire in modern societies is due to the lack of adequate exposure to fire throughout childhood.Two studies-comprising North American samples that have had significantly different levels of exposure to fire-investigated the relationship between frequency of exposure to fire throughout childhood and psychological associations with fire.Psychological associations with fire were overwhelmingly positive in both samples.Study 1 found no significant association between childhood fire exposure and positive affective associations with fire.Using a more sophisticated measurement tool and in a more rural sample, Study 2 found that, contrary to the Exposure Hypothesis, more frequent exposure to fire in childhood was associated with more positive psychological associations with fire.Potential reasons for the discrepancies between these results and earlier ethnographic reports, and their potential implications, are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".