Sensitivity to Social Contingency From Mothers and Strangers in 2‐, 4‐, and 6‐Month‐Old Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infants' sensitivity to changes in social contingency was investigated by presenting 2‐, 4‐, and 6‐month‐old infants with 3 episodes of social interaction from mothers and strangers: 2 contingent interactions and 1 noncontingent replay. Three orders were presented: (a) contingent, noncontingent, contingent; (b) contingent, contingent, noncontingent; and (c) noncontingent, contingent, contingent. Contingency and carryover effects were shown to both mothers and strangers in the different orders of presentation. Infants were more visually attentive to contingent interactions than to the noncontingent replay when contingent interactions occurred prior to the replay, and the infants' level of attention to the noncontingent replay carried over to subsequent contingent interactions. The 4‐ and 6‐month‐old infants showed contingency and carryover effects by their visual attention and smiling. Examination of effect sizes for attention suggests 2‐month‐old infants may be beginning to show the effects. Reasons for age changes in sensitivity to social contingency are discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".