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
Previous research indicates a general preference to learn from confident individuals among both adults and children. However, the interpretation of confidence remains ambiguous. In two experiments, adults ( N = 192) and 7-to-10-year-olds ( N = 143) were presented with a short video featuring either a confident or a hesitant person. Participants were subsequently queried about social and knowledge-related traits associated with the person and with confidence as an attribute. In Experiment 1, adults watching a confident person attributed more knowledge and positive social traits to the person than adults watching a hesitant person. In Experiment 2, children attributed more knowledge, but not more positive social traits, to a confident rather than a hesitant person. These findings not only help us gain a better understanding of how people perceive confidence, but also hint to how this interpretation changes with age, findings which have important implications for our understanding of social cognitive development. • We presented adults and 7-to-10-year-olds with videos of a confident or a hesitant informant. • Adults attributed more knowledge and positive social traits to confidence. • Children attributed knowledge, but not more positive social traits, to confidence.
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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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