Do Children Recognize That Kinship Relationships Have an Innate Biological Basis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three studies were conducted to investigate if four and five year old children recognize that kinship relationships are determined by biological associations and not environmental conditions. All three studies employed the “switched-at-birth” task. Study 1 investigated if children and adults recognize who the biological parents and siblings are. Study 2 examined preschoolers’ and adults’ recognition of who the biological parents and siblings are when step parents and step siblings were introduced into the family. Study 3 examined if children and adults extend their knowledge of kinship relationships to non-human creatures. For Studies 1 and 2, results indicated that preschoolers and adults have a robust and accurate biological model of kinship for both biological parents and sibling relationships. However in Study 3, preschoolers had a more difficult time recognizing biological sibling relationships than biological parent relationships in the presence of step parents and step siblings for non-human biological creatures. In totality, these results suggest that even young children (like adults) have a robust theory of kinship when reasoning about human relationships. However children’s model of kinship is fragile and still developing when reasoning and extending their knowledge about humans to non-human species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".