Influence of Knowledge Distribution on Children’s Information Seeking Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early in development, children rely on others to obtain information about unfamiliar situations or objects. They can exploit sources of information, by asking a familiar informant, or explore new sources by asking an unfamiliar informant. Children’s choices are guided by their previous experience with each informant. Children as young as 4-years-old have been shown to track informant accuracy and direct future questions to the more accurate informant (Fitneva & Dunfield, 2010; Koenig & Harris, 2005). Moreover, the distribution of knowledge may also have an impact on children’s information seeking strategies. In the current study, children were presented with an informant who correctly answered some questions. For the final question of a category, they were asked to make a choice between the familiar and unfamiliar informant. The key manipulation of this study was the knowledge distribution, as children were explicitly told either one informant or all the informants know the names of the objects in question. We expect that, in the narrowly- distributed knowledge condition, children will be more likely to exploit. On the contrary, we expect that they will be more likely to explore in the broadly-distributed knowledge condition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".