Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preschool aged children (3 and 5 years) were asked to judge the emotion expressed in museum art under two situations; one where they observed an adult conspicuously make judgments of the emotion portrayed in paintings and a second where they were not exposed to adult judgments. In the experimental condition, children were presented with five paintings (four portraying a target emotion and one an alternate emotion) and watched as an adult chose three paintings that expressed one of four target emotions (happy, sad, excited or calm). Children were asked to pick the fourth from the remaining pair of paintings. In the control condition, children were asked to choose the painting portraying the target emotion from the pair without watching an adult make choices. All stimuli had been previously rated by artists to be good exemplars of each of the emotion categories. The results indicated that 3‐year‐olds were at chance in the control condition, but matched art to emotion in a manner that was consistent with artists’ norms in the experimental condition. Five‐year‐olds showed better than chance performance in the control condition, and even higher levels of performance in the experimental condition. These findings suggest that children's judgments of expressiveness in art may be facilitated by social interaction with others who take an aesthetic stance toward paintings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".