The development of joint attention in blind infants
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
There is little documentation of how and when joint attention emerges in blind infants because the study of this ability has been predominantly reliant on visual information. Ecological self-knowledge, which is necessary for joint attention, is impaired in blind infants and is evidenced by their reaching for objects on external cues, which also marks the beginning of their Stage 4 understanding of space and object. Entry into Stage 4 should occur before joint attention emerges in these infants. In a case study of two totally blind infants, the development of joint attention was longitudinally examined during Stage 4 in monthly sessions involving interactions with objects and familiar adults. The interactions were scored for behavior preliminary to joint attention, behavior liberally construed as joint attention, and behavior conservatively construed as joint attention. Behavior preliminary to joint attention occurred throughout Stage 4: behavior suggestive of joint attention by both liberal and conservative standards emerged initially in Stage 4 and became prevalent by mid to late Stage 4. The findings are discussed in terms of how they inform our thinking about the development of joint attention with respect to the importance of vision, cognition, social context, language, and early self-knowledge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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