Children's and adults' perception of questions and statements from terminal fundamental frequency contours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study compared children's and adults' identification and discrimination of declarative questions and statements on the basis of terminal cues alone. Children (8–11 years, n = 41) and adults (n = 21) judged utterances as statements or questions from sentences with natural statement and question endings and with manipulated endings that featured intermediate fundamental frequency (F0) values. The same adults and a different sample of children (n = 22) were also tested on their discrimination of the utterances. Children's judgments shifted more gradually across categories than those of adults, but their category boundaries were comparable. In the discrimination task, adults found cross-boundary comparisons more salient than within-boundary comparisons. Adults' performance on the identification and discrimination tasks is consistent with but not definitive regarding categorical perception of statements and questions. Children, by contrast, discriminated the cross-boundary comparisons no better than other comparisons. The findings indicate age-related sharpening in the perception of statements and questions based on terminal F0 cues and the gradual emergence of distinct perceptual categories.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".