Meeting and missing minds: children and adults use alignment of intuitions to solve pure coordination games
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
In pure coordination games, players seek to coordinate responses with one another without communicating. Without a logically correct response, success depends upon players intuiting a response that is mutually obvious. Previous work suggests that such coordination requires a distinctive form of thinking and sufficient mutual knowledge, but reveals little about the basis for the intuitive judgements themselves. Here, that question was addressed by examining the basis of coordination performance of groups whose intuitions might plausibly differ: children versus adults. In an initial and pre-registered study, two groups of children (4- to 5-year-olds, and 6- to 7-year-olds) and adults undertook four types of coordination game, and novel metrics allowed “intuitive alignment” in responses to be evaluated within- and between-groups. All groups performed above chance, and adults showed higher levels of alignment than children, but adults and children showed different patterns in their intuitions. Implications for intergenerational understanding and mis-understanding are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it