MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099271661 · doi:10.1080/15250000701795614

Distinguishing Mother–Infant Interaction From Stranger–Infant Interaction at 2, 4, and 6 Months of Age

2008· article· en· W2099271661 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfancy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDyadPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyInfant developmentFace-to-face interactionCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observers watched videotaped face-to-face mother-infant and stranger-infant interactions of 12 infants at 2, 4, or 6 months of age. Half of the observers saw each mother paired with her own infant and another infant of the same age (mother tapes) and half saw each infant paired with his or her mother and with a stranger (infant tapes). Observers were asked to judge which was the mother-infant dyad in each pair. Observers' accuracy improved as infants aged and was above chance for both mother and infant tapes when infants were 6 months. Differences between mother-infant and stranger-infant dyadic communication patterns also emerged as the infants aged. At 6 months, mother-infant dyads had more symmetrical communication and less asymmetrical communication than stranger-infant dyads.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.271 · 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