Perceptions and Misperceptions of America’s Children: The Role of the Print Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is closely linked to a recent report that identified several misperceptions Americans have about our children.1 That report was based on a set of surveys designed to ascertain how well the American public understood some basic statistical facts about children today. Survey topics were selected to reflect relatively important social policy issues where responses could be compared to indisputable statistical data. Five crucial misperceptions about American children and youth were identified in the surveys: 1) Less than one fifth (19 percent knew that the number of children on welfare had declined since 1996 (the number of children receiving welfare declined by 50 percent between 1996 and 2000). 2) Less than one-fifth (19 percent) of the public is aware that the percent of children living in single-parent families has remained fairly stable over the last five years and may be heading downward. 3) Less than a quarter (22 percent) of all adults knew that theteen birth rate declined over the past five years (the teen birth rate decreased by 16 percent between 1996
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".