Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although adults use metaphors to guide their thinking and reasoning, less is known about whether metaphors might facilitate cognition earlier in development. Previous research shows that preschoolers understand metaphors, but less is known about whether preschoolers can learn from metaphors. The current preregistered experiment investigated whether adults ( n = 64) and 3- and 4-year-olds ( n = 128) can use metaphors to make new inferences. In a between-subjects design, participants heard information about novel artifacts, conveyed through either only positive metaphors (e.g., “Daxes are suns”) or positive and negative metaphors (e.g., “Daxes are suns. Daxes are not clouds.”). In both conditions, participants of all ages successfully formed metaphor-consistent inferences about abstract, functional features of the artifacts (e.g., that daxes light up rather than let out water). Moreover, participants frequently provided explanations appealing to the metaphors when justifying their responses. Consequently, metaphors may be a powerful learning mechanism from early childhood onward.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".