The role of shared practice in joint attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The infant's participation in sequences of joint activity that require visual attention is usually seen as an outcome of and evidence for the existence of particular infant psychological competencies. In a review of the relevant literature, we suggest that what is presupposed in most theories of joint attention is the role that shared social practices play in understanding the mind. It is, in fact, with recourse to such practices that researchers theorize about the infant's understanding of mind in the first instance. We argue: (1) the mind is not an entity that is separable from human activity; (2) knowledge of shared practices is what the developing agent requires to come to an understanding of their own mind and that of others; and (3) rather than searching for the best indicator of a true competence lying behind and necessary for joint attention, we should consider the various forms of interaction involving shared attention as constitutive of varying degrees of understanding. We consider the relevance of these arguments for contemporary social developmental theory.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".