MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Two-Year-Olds Use the Generic/Nongeneric Distinction to Guide Their Inferences About Novel Kinds

2011· article· en· W2128723818 on OpenAlexafffund
Susan A. Graham, Samantha L. Nayer, Susan A. Gelman

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive psychologyChild developmentDevelopmental psychologyCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

These studies investigated two hundred and forty-four 24- and 30-month-olds' sensitivity to generic versus nongeneric language when acquiring knowledge about novel kinds. Toddlers were administered an inductive inference task, during which they heard a generic noun phrase (e.g., "Blicks drink milk") or a nongeneric noun phrase (e.g., "This blick drinks milk") paired with an action (e.g., drinking) modeled on an object. They were then provided with the model and a nonmodel exemplar and asked to imitate the action. After hearing nongeneric phrases, 30-month-olds, but not 24-month-olds, imitated more often with the model than with the nonmodel exemplar. In contrast, after hearing generic phrases, 30-month-olds imitated equally often with both exemplars. These results suggest that 30-month-olds use the generic/nongeneric distinction to guide their inferences about novel kinds.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 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

Citations62
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207