MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097776600 · doi:10.1177/1362361300004002006

Imitation, Theory of Mind and Related Activities in Autism

2000· article· en· W2097776600 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Julie D. Brown, Andrew Whiten

Bibliographic record

VenueAutism · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of St AndrewsMcGill University
KeywordsAutismPsychologyImitationTheory of mindDevelopmental psychologySituational ethicsMental ageTypically developingCognitive psychologyCognitionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Systematic naturalist observations of imitation, theory of mind and other related activities (play and social contact) were conducted for five groups of subjects. The groups comprised children with autism, adults with autism, children with mixed learning disabilities, and normally developing 3- to 4-year-olds and 5- to 6-year-olds. Very little imitation was observed in any group other than the 3- to 4-year- old normal children, making it difficult to draw any conclusion about the specificity and universality of a deficit in spontaneous imitation. However, autistic subjects showed less interaction with peers, more manipulative activity, less symbolic play and less evidence of understanding mental states. The quality of these behaviours, when they did occur, also differed between groups. Comparisons across school and play situations indicated no major situational differences. The implications of the results are discussed with regard to Rogers and Pennington’s intersubjectivity theory of autism.

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)0.004
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations44
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAutismSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207