Noticing and commenting on what’s new: differences and similarities among 22‐month‐old typically developing children, children with Down syndrome and children with autism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty 22‐month‐old typically developing children (TD), 11 children with Down syndrome (DS) and 10 children with autism (A), all functioning at a one‐ or two‐word linguistic level, were given eight series of four toys to explore. In each series, the first three toys (i.e. Trials 1–3) were identical, but the fourth toy (i.e. Trial 4) differed on a property or in identity. The children sat beside their mother and the experimenter while exploring the toys. Of interest was whether (1) the TD children would show more exploratory and communicative behavior related to the toys on Trials 1 and 4 than 2 and 3, and (2) how the response patterns of nontypically developing children would compare. The DS group showed a pattern of responding similar to that of the TD group with respect to their attention and interest in the toys, although a much lower rate of communicating with their mother. In contrast, the A group differed significantly from both other groups with respect to both the toys they found of interest and the timing of their topic initiations. Implications for observing declarative communication among children with Down syndrome and children with autism are discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it