Smiling, face covering, and rhythmic body rocking in children who cheat versus do not cheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cheating is the behavioral realization of immoral decisions. It is a dynamic process that does not begin or end on the enactment of cheating. However, little research has closely looked at the behavioral dynamics of the cheating process. The current study analyzed smiling, face covering, and rhythmic body rocking among 4- to 7-year-old children (N = 120) who participated in a challenging math test. We compared these target expressive behaviors from baseline practice trials to the critical test trial. Compared with children who did not cheat, we found that those who cheated were more likely to display smiling during the critical test trial, and those who cheated were more likely to cover their faces throughout the experiment even before they had the opportunity to cheat. Rhythmic body rocking did not differ between cheating and non-cheating children. The study identified behavioral differences between children who cheated and those who did not cheat, laying the groundwork for understanding children's cheating behaviors from the lens of behavioral dynamics. It also suggests that with further research there might be some potential for distinguishing between these groups based on behavioral cues.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".