Peek‐a‐What? Infants’ Response to the Still‐Face Task After Normal and Interrupted Peek‐a‐Boo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infants’ sensitivity to the vitality or tension envelope within dyadic social exchanges was investigated by examining their responses following normal and interrupted games of peek‐a‐boo embedded in a Still‐Face Task. Infants 5–6 months old engaged in two modified Still‐Face Tasks with their mothers. In one task, the initial interaction ended with a sequence of normal peek‐a‐boos that included tension build‐up, peak, and release. In the other task, the initial interaction was followed by a sequence of peek‐a‐boos that ended with an interrupted peek‐a‐boo in which the build‐up was followed directly by the still face. Infants showed the still‐face effect with their attention and smiling when the still face followed the normal peek‐a‐boo sequence, but only with smiling when the still face followed the sequence with the interrupted peek‐a‐boo. Infants’ social bidding to their mothers in the still‐face phase was greater following the interrupted peek‐a‐boo sequence. When social exchanges are interrupted before the closure of the vitality envelope, infants respond with more attention vigilance and social bidding, demonstrating their awareness of the structure of social exchanges.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".