MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019559199 · doi:10.1037/dev0000925

Preschoolers use helpful and harmful interactions to predict social category membership.

2020· article· en· W3019559199 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica L. Switzer, Valerie San Juan, Susan A. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Children's Hospital FoundationCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsCategorizationPsychologySocial categorySocial psychologyCharacter (mathematics)Developmental psychologySocial relationPsycINFOProperty (philosophy)Concept learningCognitive psychologyLinguisticsMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 229) were introduced to 2 novel social categories (comprised of diverse individuals), each possessing a distinct property (e.g., dancing vs. singing). During test trials, children witnessed members from each category direct helpful, harmful, or neutral actions toward ambiguous characters. In Experiment 1, when a member of a category exhibited helpful actions toward an ambiguous character, children inferred that the ambiguous character belonged to the same category as the helper. In contrast, when a group member directed harmful actions toward the ambiguous character, children inferred that ambiguous character belonged to the alternate category. In neither case did children extend category properties to the new member. In Experiment 2, category properties were introduced as mutually exclusive social conventions. Here, children used helpful and harmful actions to identify the social category of an ambiguous character and generalize the property. In Experiment 3, when social categories were introduced using only shared physical location and shared activity as a marker of category membership, children did not use helpful or harmful behavior to predict category membership. Together findings indicate that children can identify social category membership based on observed social interactions when meaningful category information is available. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychologySame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207