Do Preschoolers and Adults Think That Academic and Athletic Abilities are Inherited? A Pilot Study
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
The following study examined if preschoolers and adults think that certain academic and athletic abilities are inherited or determined by the environment. Twenty-one preschoolers and 28 adults were presented with 9 switched-at-birth vignettes (math, reading, science, language, music, art, gymnastics, soccer and swimming) where in certain cases the birth parents were good at a task and in other situations the adoptive parents were good at a task. Participants had to decide if their child would resemble the birth parents or the adoptive parents in their abilities. The results suggest that overall there are no significant differences between preschoolers and adults reason in the way they reason about the role of inheritance in the area of academics, arts, and athletics. However, the one domain where there was a significant grade difference between preschoolers and adults was in the area of academics (math, reading and science) with adults attributing inheritance as being more responsible for abilities in this area. Overall these results suggest that there is no significant difference in the way preschoolers and adults reason about the inheritance of these abilities.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it