MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566227378 · doi:10.1002/acp.3305

Interviewing Preschoolers: Response Biases to Yes–No Questions

2016· article· en· W2566227378 on OpenAlex
Mehdi B. Mehrani, Carole Peterson

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Cognitive Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInterviewDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyCompliance (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In the present study we examined the influence of question format and age on Iranian children's responses to various types of yes–no questions, to assess potential response biases. The participants were 177 2‐to 6‐year old native speakers of Persian who were asked both positively and negatively formulated yes–no questions about eight household objects. The results showed that children of different ages are influenced differently by the way questions are formulated. The findings also suggest that children display a compliance tendency when asked yes–no questions. That is, they tend to respond to yes–no questions in the direction implied by the question: ‘yes’ to positively worded questions and ‘no’ to negatively worded questions. This tendency, however, seems to grow weaker as children get older. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.007

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.269 · 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