MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100497770 · doi:10.1177/0956797610388810

Induction, Overhypothesis, and the Origin of Abstract Knowledge

2010· article· en· W2100497770 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathryn Dewar, Fei Xu

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyGeneralizationMechanism (biology)Concept learningCognitionInductive reasoningCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceDevelopmental psychologyCognitive developmentArtificial intelligenceEpistemologyNeuroscienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human cognition relies on the ability to extract generalizable knowledge from limited evidence. One type of inductive learning, overhypothesis formation, allows learners to make inferences that take them beyond the limits of direct experience, leading to the creation of abstract knowledge. The developmental roots of this ability have yet to be investigated. We report three experiments examining whether 9-month-old infants are capable of forming overhypotheses. Our results show that when given evidence about a few objects in some category, infants formed a second-order generalization about categories in general. These findings provide evidence that infants possess a powerful mechanism for inductive learning-a mechanism that may be applied to many domains and that can account for the development of many inductive biases later on.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations130
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207