Cognitive flexibility supports preschoolers’ detection of communicative ambiguity
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
To become successful communicators, children must be sensitive to the clarity/ambiguity of language. Significant gains in children’s ability to detect communicative ambiguity occur during the early school-age years. However, little is known about the cognitive abilities that support this development. Relations between cognitive flexibility and ambiguity detection were assessed in preschool- (4- to 5-years-old, n = 40) and school-age (6- to 7-years-old, n = 36) children. Children rated the quality of clues (unambiguous/ambiguous) to the location of hidden stimuli provided by a videotaped speaker. Cognitive flexibility was assessed through a task requiring children to sequentially sort toys. Both age groups rated ambiguous clues as less helpful than unambiguous clues; however, school-age children were better able to detect ambiguity. Cognitive flexibility was related to preschool (but not school-age) children’s communicative ambiguity detection, when controlling for age and receptive language. Results suggest that cognitive flexibility may be particularly important for the initial development of ambiguity detection.
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) | 0.003 | 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