MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109515298 · doi:10.1111/cdep.12064

On the Links Among Face Processing, Language Processing, and Narrowing During Development

2014· article· en· W2109515298 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier Pascalis, Hélène Lœvenbruck, Paul C. Quinn, Sonia Kandel, James W. Tanaka, Kang Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development Perspectives · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Victoria
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsGesturePerceptionPsychologyFacial expressionFace (sociological concept)CognitionCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceLanguage developmentFace perceptionCommunicationComputer scienceLinguisticsDevelopmental psychologyArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the beginning of life, face and language processing are crucial for establishing social communication. Studies on the development of systems for processing faces and language have yielded such similarities as perceptual narrowing across both domains. In this article, we review several functions of human communication, and then describe how the tools used to accomplish those functions are modified by perceptual narrowing. We conclude that narrowing is common to all forms of social communication. We argue that during evolution, social communication engaged different perceptual and cognitive systems-face, facial expression, gesture, vocalization, sound, and oral language-that emerged at different times. These systems are interactive and linked to some extent. In this framework, narrowing can be viewed as a way infants adapt to their native social group.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations123
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Development PerspectivesSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207