Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most learning theories agree that the productivity of a rule or a pattern relies on regular exemplars being dominant over exceptions; the threshold for productivity is, however, unclear; moreover, gradient productivity levels are assumed for different rules/patterns, regular or irregular. One theory by Yang, the Tolerance Principle (TP), specified a productivity threshold applicable to all rules, calculated by the numbers of total exemplars and exceptions of a rule; furthermore, rules are viewed as quantal, either productive or unproductive, with no gradient levels. We evaluated the threshold and gradience-quantalness questions by investigating infants' generalization. In an implicit learning task, 14-month-olds heard exemplars of an artificial word-order rule and exceptions; their distributions were set closed to the TP-threshold (5.77) on both sides: 11 regular exemplars vs. 5 exceptions in Condition 1 (productiveness predicted), and 10 regular exemplars vs. 6 exceptions in Condition 2 (unproductiveness predicted). These predictions were pitted against those of the statistical majority threshold (50%), a common assumption which would predict generalization in both conditions (68.75, 62.5%). Infants were tested on the trained rule with new exemplars. Results revealed generalization in Condition 1, but not in Condition 2, supporting the TP-threshold, not the statistical majority threshold. Gradience-quantalness was assessed by combined analyses of Conditions 1-2 and previous experiments by Koulaguina and Shi. The training across the conditions contained gradually decreasing regular exemplars (100, 80, 68.75, 62.5, 50%) relative to exceptions. Results of test trials showed evidence for quantalness in infants (productive: 100, 80, 68.75%; unproductive: 62.5, 50%), with no gradient levels of productivity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".