MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042931030 · doi:10.1177/1088357612441828

Lie-Telling Behavior in Children With Autism and Its Relation to False-Belief Understanding

2012· article· en· W2042931030 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

VenueFocus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAutismTemptationTypically developingTheory of mindDevelopmental psychologyAutism spectrum disorderLie detectionFalse beliefDeceptionSocial psychologyCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children’s lie-telling behavior and its relation to false-belief understanding was examined in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD; n = 26) and a comparison group of typically developing children ( n = 27). Participants were assessed using a temptation resistance paradigm, in which children were told not to peek at a forbidden toy while left alone in a room and were later asked if they peeked. Overall, 77% of the total sample peeked at the toy, with no significant difference between the ASD and typically developing groups. Whereas 96% of the typically developing control children lied about peeking, significantly fewer children with ASD (72%) lied. Children with ASD were poorer at maintaining their lies than the control group. Liars had higher false-belief scores than truth-tellers. These findings have implications for understanding how theory of mind deficits may limit the ability of children with ASD to purposefully deceive others.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.235 · 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