Making Sense of Divergent Interpretations of Conflict and Developing an Interpretive Understanding of Mind
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
Our goals in this study were to develop a measure of children's understanding of divergent interpretations of conflict and relate that measure to children's more general interpretive understanding of mind (Carpendale & Chandler, 1996). Eighty-nine children between 4 and 9 years of age heard 4 conflict stories in which fault was ambiguous. Children overwhelmingly suggested that antagonists would blame each other and adequately justified those judgments. However, children under 7 years did not believe that it made sense for antagonists to disagree, and children were better able to explain why mutual blame made sense as they grew older. Children's judgments of the legitimacy of and explanations for divergent conflict interpretations were correlated with similar measures assessing their understanding of the general interpretive quality of mind. Findings are discussed in terms of the role of everyday interaction for the gradual acquisition of interpretive understanding.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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