Examining the Role of Attention and Intention in Two-year-olds’ Acquisition of Novel Words
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<titre>Résumé</titre>Des études ont démontré que les enfants utilisent la direction du regard de l’adulte pour identifier le référent d’un nouveau mot (Baldwin, 1991). Cet article explore la possibilité que le regard oriente l’attention vers un objet à cause de la nature directionnelle du regard. Dans la première étude, nous démontrons que des enfants âgés de 24 mois peuvent mettre en correspondance (map) un nouveau mot et un nouvel objet si l’objet apparait à un endroit identifié par un indice non référentiel (c'st-à-dire, lumières clignotantes). Cependant, les résultats de l’étude suivante indiquent que la direction du regard ne fonctionne pas comme les indices non référentiels. En effet, le regard vers un objet spécifique permet aux enfants d’associer cet objet à un nouveau mot mais le regard ne permet pas cette association si c’est l’emplacementt de l’objet qui est ciblé par le regard. Ces résultats suggèrent que les enfants considèrent la direction du regard comme un marqueur de l’intentionalité du locuteur.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".