Two‐year‐olds’ sensitivity to a parent's knowledge state: Mind reading or contextual cues?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were designed to determine if children at 27 and 33 months of age tailor their communicative behaviours to the knowledge states of their social partners. In each study, an experimenter placed a desirable object into one of two opaque containers. The child was then required to ask for a parent's assistance in retrieving the object. In one condition, the parent covered her eyes during sticker placement (parent ignorant condition); in a second condition, the parent's eyes were open during sticker placement (parent knowledgeable condition); and in a third condition, the parent first covered her eyes but then opened them during placement of the sticker (sham ignorant condition). The results indicated that children at both ages were appropriately employing a pointing gesture more often in the parent ignorant condition than in the parent knowledgeable condition. However, children responded to the sham hiding condition differently at the two ages. In the sham condition, older children appropriately gestured less than in the parent ignorant condition. However, the younger children were equally likely to use gestures in the sham condition and the parent ignorant condition. Considered together, the data suggest that different factors are controlling the selective use of gestures in these two age groups.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".