RETROSPEKTIV OPKLARING AF OVERGREB – KAN VI STOLE PÅ BØRNS ERINDRINGER?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artiklen opsummerer en række udenlandske undersøgelser vedrørende små børns erindringsevne, deres modtagelighed for suggestion og troværdigheden af deres vidneudsagn. Erindringsevnen udvikles op igennem barndommen. Børn i førskolealderen er ofte afhængig af voksenstøtte i form af konkrete spørgsmål og stikord, når bestemte erindringer skal hentes frem fra hukommelsen og genfortælles. Af samme grund løber den voksne en risiko for at komme til at påvirke barnet, hvis barnet udspørges på grundlag af en mistanke, og mistanken får lov til at præge de spørgsmål, som stilles. Mange undersøgelser viser, at pågående og gentagne spørgsmål, som kredser omkring mulige, men fiktive, hændelser, kan få børn til at bekræfte ting, som aldrig har fundet sted, og få dem til at give uddybende beskrivelser af sådanne hændelser med egne detaljer. Disse undersøgelsesresultater relateres til den senere tids sager om formodede sexovergreb i daginstitutioner.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.250 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.011 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".