MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding Interest in the Second Year of Life

2010· article· en· W1601401495 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfancy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyObject (grammar)Context (archaeology)Developmental psychologyDiversity (politics)Object permanenceSocial psychologyCognitive developmentCognitionArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infants (n = 24, mean age 13 months and n = 24, mean age 19 months) were tested on an extension of the method introduced by Tomasello and Haberl (2003) to examine the understanding of another person's interest in a novel object. Four objects were presented serially. For two objects, infants played with an experimenter. The infant played with one object alone, and the experimenter played with one object alone. Finally, all four objects were presented together, and the experimenter excitedly asked for one without indicating which. Results showed that younger infants tended to chose the object that they had not yet played with, whereas older infants were significantly more likely to choose the object that the experimenter had not yet played with. These results are discussed in the context of research on the development of understanding diversity of simple object-directed attitudes in the second year of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it