MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383311775 · doi:10.1080/10888691.2023.2231846

Interview and child factors that influence children’s true disclosures of a parent’s versus a stranger’s wrongdoing

2023· article· en· W4383311775 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Developmental Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHonestyWrongdoingPsychologyOathSecrecyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyDeceptionSuggestibilityLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

115, 6–9-year-olds (M age = 7.47 years) participated in a scripted event during which the child’s mother or a stranger broke a forbidden puppet and requested secrecy. Then, children were either (1) primed for the goal of honesty (prime), (2) asked to promise to tell the truth (oath), or (3) given no instructions (control) before responding to open-ended, direct, and suggestive questions about their own and the transgressor’s behavior. Children who had greater trust in their parents were more protective of the transgressor, disclosing later in the interview and providing fewer honest responses to direct and suggestive questions. Children were more honest in response to the suggestive than direct questions, especially when their mother had transgressed. Neither the prime nor the oath significantly promoted children’s honesty. Results advance our understanding of interview and child factors that influence children’s disclosures of transgressions committed by parents versus unfamiliar adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it