MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Early Manifestations of Children’s Theory of Mind: The Roles of Maternal Mind‐Mindedness and Infant Security of Attachment

2010· article· en· W1791145447 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Laranjo, Annie Bernier, Elizabeth Meins, Stephanie M. Carlson

Bibliographic record

VenueInfancy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTheory of mindDevelopmental psychologyAttachment theoryInfant developmentCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated two aspects of mother-child relationships-mothers' mind-mindedness and infant attachment security-in relation to two early aspects of children's theory of mind development (ToM). Sixty-one mother-child dyads (36 girls) participated in testing phases at 12 (T1), 15 (T2), and 26 months of age (T3), allowing for assessment of maternal mind-mindedness (T1), infant attachment (T2), and child ToM understanding (T3). Results indicated that children's understanding of discrepant desires and visual perspectives was positively related to their mothers' earlier use of appropriate mind-related comments in certain contexts. Furthermore, more securely attached boys, but not girls, performed better on a task requiring comprehension of their mothers' visual perspective. Hence, the links previously found between competent parenting and older children's ToM performance appear to extend, to a certain degree, to toddlers' first manifestations of ToM understanding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations149
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfancySame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207