MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115583364 · doi:10.1080/15250000902839955

Relation Between Maternal Contingent Responsiveness and Infant Social Expectations

2009· article· en· W2115583364 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy Mcquaid, Maximilian B. Bibok, Jeremy I. M. Carpendale

Bibliographic record

VenueInfancy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial relationPhase (matter)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the relation between maternal contingent responsiveness and 4- and 5-month-old infants' (N = 64) social expectation behavior in a still-face procedure. Mothers were asked to interact with their infants for 2 min (interactive phase), remain still-faced for 1 min (still-face phase), and resume interaction for 2 min. Mother and infant behavior was assessed for the frequency of infant and mother smiles, mother smiles that were contingent to infant smiles and infant smiles were contingent to mother smiles during the interactive phase, and infant social bids to mother during the still-face phase. Hierarchical regression showed that mother contingent smiles during the interactive phase accounted for unique variance in infant social bids during the still-face phase beyond that accounted for by the frequency of mother and infant smiles during the interactive phase. These results support the view that young infants' social expectations and sense of self-efficacy are formed within their interactions with their caregivers.

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)0.007
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations54
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfancySame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207