Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter is about “knowing” or, more specifically, about knowing about knowledge and beliefs and how such beliefs about beliefs develop across the life span. The chapter is divided into four parts. In Part One, we work to make clear what is ordinarily intended by talk of children's so-called developing theories of mind, discussing, along the way, key research findings meant to give legitimacy to such talk. In Part Two we explore various claims and lines of evidence concerning children younger than the celebrated “watershed age” of three-and-a-half or four; all in an effort to examine what we take to be the suspect claim that infants and toddlers are bereft of anything that would qualify as a working understanding of their own and others' mental lives. Here, research on deception, lying, pretence, and various referential actions are reviewed. In Part Three, we examine what has been said to happen in the development of belief entitlement in the early school years and beyond. Because such accomplishments concern events unfolding across the remaining nine-tenths of the life span, this section is subdivided into two parts: Part IIIA, concerned with research involving middle school children, with a special focus on what has been termed their interpretive theories of mind; and Part IIIB, in which key research on epistemic development in adolescence and adulthood is summarized. In a final Conclusion section (Part IV), we identify developmental threads that appear to run through the whole of this fractured literature that with further investigation might contribute to an eventual full life-span account of the development of beliefs about beliefs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".