Does implying peer knowledge during an interview promote truthful disclosures from peer disclosure recipients and witnesses?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested a novel implied peer knowledge paradigm in which both child witnesses and child recipients (children who previously received a disclosure from a witness) were able to infer, with varying degrees of saliency, the likelihood that an adult interviewer would hear about a negative transgression from a peer and adjust their disclosure strategy accordingly. We tracked children’s disclosures (N = 418; aged 6-12 years; Mage = 8.91 years, SD = 1.37) across two interviews and found that providing a verbal notice of implied knowledge to child disclosure recipients (not child witnesses) that a peer who had previously disclosed to them would also be talking to an adult increased their disclosure rates. This study adds to a small body of work examining patterns of disclosure transmissions from witnesses to peers to adults, which is frequently observed in situations of child sexual abuse.
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 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 | 0.001 |
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 it