MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967308008 · doi:10.1080/15248370701612951

Out of Sight Is Not Out of Mind: Developmental Changes in Infants' Understanding of Visual Perception During the Second Year

2007· article· en· W1967308008 on OpenAlexafffund
Diane Poulin‐Dubois, Beate Sodian, Ulrike Metz, Joanne Tilden, Barbara Schoeppner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognition and Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsPsychologyGazeSightPerceptionObject permanenceObject (grammar)Visual perceptionObserver (physics)Cognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyAction (physics)Theory of mindCognitive developmentCognitionArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three experiments investigated 14-, 18-, and 24- month-old infants' understanding of visual perception. Infants viewed films in which a protagonist was either able to view the location of a hidden object (Visual Access condition) or was blindfolded when the object location was revealed (No Visual Access condition). When requested to find the object, the protagonist pointed either at the correct location or at the incorrect location. Across experiments, 18-month-olds looked longer at the unexpected action (e.g., person pointing at the incorrect location in the Visual Access condition). By 24 month of age, infants could infer the correct search behavior from gaze alone. These findings suggest that by the middle of the second year of life, infants understand the psychological relation between an observer and an object, even if the object is no longer visible.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations38
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognition and DevelopmentSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207