Influence of Socio-linguistic Context and Knowledge Bias on False-Belief Performance of School-aged Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three-year-old children have shown remarkable difficulties reasoning about false beliefs of others. Researchers have proposed several explanations as to why children under three years of age fail at the false belief task. The most popular one is that children’s conceptual understandings of belief of mental representations are not available to them until they are four to five years of age. A qualitative conceptual change emerges after the fourth birthday, contributing to false belief understanding (Carlson, 2005; Wellman, 2001). A second possibility has to do with the underdevelopment of executive function that may contribute to the failing of the task at three and the success at four years of age. Another explanation was advanced by Birch and Bloom (2003) contending that an individual was biased by their own knowledge state when appreciating a more naive perspective held by others (Birch & Bloom 2003, Birch, 2005), calling this phenomenon the “curse of knowledge.” In this study, sixty-nine school-aged children were shown a false belief task (i.e., FBT). Results indicated that the children’s metacognitive awareness of socio-linguistic context; the plausibility of the outcome, and the “curse of knowledge” influenced their performance on this task.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".