The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Infants consider both the sample and the sampling process in inductive generalization
Open accessAbstract
The ability to make inductive inferences from sparse data is a critical aspect of human learning. However, the properties observed in a sample of evidence depend not only on the true extension of those properties but also on the process by which evidence is sampled. Because neither the property extension nor the sampling process is directly observable, the learner's ability to make accurate generalizations depends on what is known or can be inferred about both variables. In particular, different inferences are licensed if samples are drawn randomly from the whole population (weak sampling) than if they are drawn only from the property's extension (strong sampling). Given a few positive examples of a concept, only strong sampling supports flexible inferences about how far to generalize as a function of the size and composition of the sample. Here we present a Bayesian model of the joint dependence between observed evidence, the sampling process, and the property extension and test the model behaviorally with human infants (mean age: 15 months). Across five experiments, we show that in the absence of behavioral cues to the sampling process, infants make inferences consistent with the use of strong sampling; given explicit cues to weak or strong sampling, they constrain their inferences accordingly. Finally, consistent with quantitative predictions of the model, we provide suggestive evidence that infants’ inferences are graded with respect to the strength of the evidence they observe.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development
Keil, F. C. (1989) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2065.001.0001 · Cited by 1,886
Cited by
Building machines that learn and think like people
Lake, B. M., Ullman, T. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gershman, S. J. (2017) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x16001837 · Cited by 2,550
Self-citationEmotional expressions reconsidered: Challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements
Barrett, L. F., Adolphs, R., Marsella, S., Martinez, A. M., & Pollak, S. D. (2019) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100619832930 · Cited by 1,748
Dweck, C. S. (2017) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000082 · Cited by 683
Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory theory.
Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0028044 · Cited by 663
Probabilistic models of cognition: exploring representations and inductive biases
Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.004 · Cited by 568
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gweon, H., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Schulz, L. E.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2010-04-30
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 9066-9071
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2091310756
- Cited by
- 229
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 21.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Infants consider both the sample and the sampling process in inductive generalization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1003095107
- The paper
- Gweon, H., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Schulz, L. E. (2010). Infants consider both the sample and the sampling process in inductive generalization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003095107
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.