Evidence of Theory of Mind in the Written Language of Deaf Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The link between Theory of Mind (ToM) and literacy is increasingly being recognized in the literature. However, the focus to date has concentrated on the connections between reading and ToM, with an emphasis on the ways in which ToM is implicated in making inferences from text and suggestions that engaging in reading fiction can support the development of ToM. The exploratory study presented in this paper is unique in its approach as it widens the focus to consider the relationship between ToM and writing. Using a developmental framework based on the work of Westby and Robinson (Westby, C. & Robinson L. (2014). A developmental perspective for promoting theory of mind. Topics in Language Disorders 34 (4), 362-382 doi: 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000035), the written narratives of 43 deaf children (aged 7.2 years to 11.11 years) were examined for evidence of ToM. Evidence of ToM was found in the writing of 86% of the participants (n = 37) with children demonstrating abilities across the spectrum of development. Implications for both research and pedagogical practice are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".