Understanding Common Developmental Timetables across Cultures from a Developmental Systems Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence that the development of communicative skills is influenced by the nature of children’s social experience raises the question of how such development occurs in cultures that differ in the nature and amount of social interaction that young children experience. Lieven and Stoll [this issue] address this question in their article ‘‘Early communicative development in two cultures’’ in which they report a longitudinal naturalistic study of early communicative development in two cultures: a remote Chintang village in Eastern Nepal and a rural area of Western Germany. During the observations there were many more adults and other children present in the village in Nepal compared to the families in Germany, and the Nepalese children were often cared for by older children. But although these cultures seem very different, in fact, Lieven and Stoll found that the children experienced about the same amount of interaction across the two cultures; it was mainly whom they were interacting with that differed. Lieven and Stoll report similar timetables in the development of early communicative skills across the two cultures: ‘‘… babies from both cultures were on a similar timetable for the emergence of basic skills involving communicative interaction: pointing, imitation, and the combined categories of offering, reaching, requesting, showing, and attention-getting’’ (p. 197). Empirical questions remain, of course, concerning individual differences in communicative development and whether different developmental timetables would be found in other cultures that might differ in other ways. However, the important developmental question raised by such research concerns common developmental timetables in early communicative development. The role of the input and the nature of the social context in which young children grow up has been a central question in
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".