MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The role of joint attention in the development of infants’ play with objects

2004· article· en· W2038906723 on OpenAlexafffund
Ann E. Bigelow, Kim MacLean, Jane Proctor

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsCapilano UniversitySt. Francis Xavier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsJoint attentionPsychologyJoint (building)Developmental psychologyMaturity (psychological)Visual attentionCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Year-old infants' play was scored within and outside joint attention with mother and when alone for four levels of maturity: stereotypical, inappropriate relational, appropriate relational, functional. Maternal sensitivity within joint attention was rated on two measures: following infants' interests and scaffolding infants' activities. Infants' play was more advanced with mother than when alone. With mother, infants had more functional and appropriate relational play within joint attention and more stereotypical play outside joint attention, indicating more advanced play within joint attention and more immature play outside joint attention. Functional play within joint attention, but not outside joint attention, correlated with functional play when alone. Mothers' ability to scaffold infants' activities within joint attention may be particularly facilitative to infants' advanced play.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations134
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental ScienceSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207