Children’s Perception of Animacy: Social Attributions to Moving Figures
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
Adults describe abstract shapes moving in a goal-directed manner using animate terms. This study tested which variables affect school-aged children's descriptions of moving geometrical shapes. Children aged 5 to 9 years were shown displays of interacting geometrical shapes and were asked to describe them. Across participants, instructions, number of moving figures, whether a figure caught another, and complexity of the scene were manipulated. Nine-year-olds used significantly more animate phrases than 5-year-olds. Furthermore, we found an Age by Condition interaction. Five-year-olds made significantly more animate statements in the animate condition, while 7-year-olds and 9-year-olds were less affected by instructions. Scene complexity increased children's use of animate phrases. Number of agents present on the screen and whether a catch occurred did not impact children's animate attributions. Our results support the hypothesis that children, like adults, are attuned to animacy cues and describe chasing agents in animate terms.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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