MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123250004 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsm069

Brief Report: Lie-telling in Children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder

2007· article· en· W2123250004 on OpenAlexaff
Carmen Rasmussen, Victoria Talwar, Carly Loomes, Gail Andrew

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderTemptationPsychologyLyingDevelopmental psychologyFetal alcoholAudiologyMedicineSocial psychologyAlcoholPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The lie-telling abilities of children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) (aged 4-8 years) were tested using a temptation resistance paradigm. METHODS: Children were told not to peek at a forbidden toy while left alone in a room. Later children were asked if they peeked at the toy as well as follow-up questions to see if they could conceal their peeking behavior and maintain their lie in subsequent verbal statements. RESULTS: Approximately 78% of the children peeked at the toy. However, 94% of the FASD children lied about peeking, a rate that is much higher than the non-FASD control group (72%). As age increased, FASD children were better at concealing their lies and maintaining semantic leakage control than non-FASD children. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to specifically test lying in children with FASD and has implications for remediation and understanding secondary disabilities in these children, which will lead to further research in this area.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations44
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207