Turkish- and English-speaking 3-year-old children are sensitive to the evidential strength of claims when revising their beliefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• 3-year-olds can evaluate the evidential strength of a claim when revising their beliefs. • Turkish- and English-speaking children evaluate the evidential strength of a claim the same way. • Being exposed to languages with evidential marking may not provide an advantage in evaluating information reliability. Individuals revise their beliefs based on the evidential strength of others’ claims. Unlike English, in languages such as Turkish evidential marking is obligatory; speakers must express whether their claims are based on direct observation or not. We investigated whether Turkish- and English-speaking 3- and 5-year-olds ( N = 146; 72 girls; based in Turkey and Canada) differed in their belief revision after hearing claims based on direct observation, indirect observation, or inference. We found the same pattern in both linguistic groups; the 3-year-olds revised their beliefs more often when they heard claims based on direct observation and inference than on indirect observation, whereas the 5-year-olds showed no difference across different claims. By age 3, Turkish- and English-speaking children are sensitive to the strength of claims when revising their beliefs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".