Perceptions and Misperceptions of America’s Children: The Role of the Print Media
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
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.
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