Claims

The non-expert-trained classifier also distinguishes expert definitions of curiosity and interest above chance

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? The Study 1 classifier correctly classified 67/92 (72.83%) of expert definitions, with interest definitions classified more accurately (80.85%) than curiosity definitions (64.44%). → Donnellan 2021

Evidence

Donnellan 2021

Donnellan, E., Aslan, S., Fastrich, G. M., & Murayama, K. (2021). How Are Curiosity and Interest Different? Naïve Bayes Classification of People's Beliefs. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09622-9

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Study 2 tested the classifier trained on non-expert definitions against definitions from 47 experts (psychologists and neuroscientists studying curiosity/interest); Table 1 reports 67/92 correct (72.83%) overall, with per-type rates of 64.44% (curiosity) and 80.85% (interest).

"Study 2 Expert data (n = 47*) 67/92 (72.83%) 29/45 (64.44%) 38/47 (80.85%)"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id classifier-generalises-to-expert-definitions
title The non-expert-trained classifier also distinguishes expert definitions of curiosity and interest above chance
description The non-expert-trained classifier also distinguishes expert definitions of curiosity and interest above chance
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2021
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-22
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — donnellan-2021

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.