The difficulty of teaching adults to recognize referential ambiguity in children's testimony: The influence of explicit instruction and sample questions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adults often fail to recognize the ambiguity of children's unelaborated responses to “Do you know/remember (DYK/R) if/whether” questions. Two studies examined whether sample questions and/or an explicit instruction would improve adults' ability to recognize referential ambiguity in children's testimony. In Study 1 ( N = 383), participants rarely recognized referential ambiguity in the sample questions or in children's testimony, and answering sample questions had no influence on their ability to detect ambiguity in children's testimony. Study 2 ( N = 363) attempted to clarify the meaning of ambiguity for participants with explicit instructions. Results revealed that although an explicit instruction improved performance on sample questions, this also led to an overcorrection, and instructions and sample questions only modestly improved adults' ability to recognize referential ambiguity in children's testimony. Ultimately, the absence of an effective strategy for alerting adults to the problem of referential ambiguity highlights the dangers of DYK/R if/whether questions.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".