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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".