MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Attention-Seeking During Caregiver Unavailability and Collaboration at Age 2

2012· article· en· W1900219806 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Pierre M. Gosselin, David Forman

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyImitationDevelopmental psychologyTemperamentMoodQuality (philosophy)Mechanism (biology)Style (visual arts)Social psychologyPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several theoretical approaches have discussed the role of children's expectations of their parent's responsiveness in explaining motivation to collaborate in acquiring skills. This study attempted to measure these expectations in 102 toddlers (M age = 26.4 months) through observations of attention-seeking (A-S) behaviors during caregiver's restricted availability. Child collaboration was coded during skill-learning tasks (imitation and block building), and parent responsiveness was observed during dyadic activities. Different A-S styles emerged, supporting the existence of both positive and negative expectations of responsiveness. A-S quality statistically mediated the link between parent responsiveness and child collaborative outcomes, even after controlling for temperament and mood. This is the first study to show that toddlers' expectations are a plausible mechanism linking parent responsiveness to child collaboration.

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)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207