MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989204218 · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00222

The Development of Relational Landmark Use in Six- to Twelve-Month-Old Infants in a Spatial Orientation Task

2000· article· en· W1989204218 on OpenAlexaff
Adina R. Lew, J. Gavin Bremner, L. P. Lefkovitch

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpatial Cognition and Navigation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandmarkPsychologyCoding (social sciences)Orientation (vector space)Spatial cognitionTask (project management)Spatial abilitySpatial relationCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyArtificial intelligenceCognitionComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to use the relations between visible landmarks to locate nonvisible goals (allocentric spatial coding) underlies success on a variety of everyday spatial orientation problems. Little is known about the development of true relational coding in infancy. Ninety-six 6-, 8.5- and 12-month-old infants were observed in a peekaboo paradigm in which they had to turn to a target location after displacement to a novel position and direction of facing. In a landmark condition, the target position was located between two landmarks, contrasted with a control condition in which no distinctive landmarks were provided. Six-month-old infants performed poorly in both conditions, 8.5-month-olds were significantly better with the landmarks, and 12-month-olds solved the task with or without landmarks. A follow-up study confirmed that the 8.5-month-olds used both landmarks to solve the task. This demonstration of allocentric spatial coding in 8.5-month-old infants shows earlier competence than that found in previous work in which only infants at the end of the first year were able to use landmarks relationally.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations49
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicSpatial Cognition and NavigationFrench-language works237,207