MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059895298 · doi:10.1177/0142723706064834

Children's communicative strategies in novel and familiar word situations

2006· article· en· W2059895298 on OpenAlexafffund
Samantha L. Nayer, Susan A. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueFirst Language · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsSociety for Research in Child Development
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionObject (grammar)Group (periodic table)Cognitive psychologyWord (group theory)Developmental psychologyCommunicationSocial psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present studies investigated 3-year-olds' ability to adapt their communication based on their parents' knowledge state when requesting familiar and novel objects. Children participated in a toy retrieval game during which their parent was present or absent during toy introductions. In Study 1, children used more specific requests and cue combinations in the parent-absent group versus parent-present group when requesting familiar labelled objects. In Study 2, a similar game was administered with adaptations to reduce cognitive demands. Children produced more specific requests in the parent-absent group compared with the parent-present group when requesting an unlabelled novel object. The results indicate that three-year-olds have an emergent ability to adapt their communicative behaviours based on their parents' knowledge state.

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)0.005
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFirst LanguageSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207