Transmission of children’s disclosures of a transgression from peers to adults
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peers are common recipients of disclosures about negative events, but the transmission of peer disclosures to adults is not well understood. We explored children’s (N = 352; aged 6–11 years) disclosures of a negative event to peer and adult interviewers. Some children witnessed an adult transgression and were asked to keep the transgression a secret (witnesses). Some of these witnesses (peer-interviewed witnesses) were then interviewed by peer who had not witnessed the event (peer interviewers) and then by an adult. The remainder of the witnesses (control) were only interviewed by an adult. Peer interviewers who received a disclosure were likely to share the disclosure with an adult and were significantly more likely to do so than children in either witness condition. Although the probability of disclosure transmission likely depends on context, this study provides the first evidence of peer recipients’ willingness to disclose to adults at a high rate.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it