The Relationship Between Children's Gaze Reporting and Theory of Mind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seventy-nine 3- and 4-year-old children were tested on gaze-reporting ability and Wellman and Liu's (2004 Wellman , H. M. , & Liu , D. ( 2004 ). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks . Child Development , 75 , 523 – 541 .[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) continuous measure of theory of mind (ToM). Children were better able to report where someone was looking when eye and head direction were provided as a cue compared with when only eye direction cues were provided. With the exception of younger boys, a significant number of children were able to perform at better-than-chance levels in both conditions. Children performed equally well with static and dynamic displays. A composite gaze-reporting measure was only weakly correlated with overall ToM; however, analyses of individual tasks revealed that children were more likely to pass a desire-reasoning task and fail gaze reporting than the reverse. The opposite was found for the relation between gaze reporting and the belief tasks. It was suggested that the ability to understand others’ subjective desires, not the ability to understand others’ representational beliefs, may be a precursor to having a “mentalistic” understanding of gaze.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".