Nine- and twelve-month-old infants relate emotions to people's actions
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
Under investigation was whether 9- to 12-month-olds appreciate that a person's expression of pleasure when gazing toward an object is consistent with that person's subsequent handling of the object. Infants were randomly assigned to an experimental and control group. In the experimental group infants during the pretrials saw a Happy or an Unhappy person saying either “Oh I like objects” or, “I don't like objects”, respectively, while looking at an abstract object. In the habituation phase, infants saw an actor holding the abstract object, but the emotional expression of the actor was obscured. In the posttrial, infants were alternately presented with either the Happy or the Unhappy actor holding the object. In the control group, infants received the same three phase procedure, except that no object was present during the pre- and habituation trials. Analyses comparing the between-subjects variables revealed that infants in the Experimental group looked significantly longer at the Unhappy actor than infants in the Control group but less long at the Happy actor. This study is the first to compare positive and negative emotions and to show that infants as young as 9 months use these emotions to make inferences about people's subsequent actions on objects.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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