Infants' use of material properties to guide their actions with differently weighted objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two studies with 9‐, 11‐ and 13‐month‐old infants were conducted to investigate infants' ability to use an object's material properties to guide their object‐directed actions. In study 1, 9‐ and 11‐month‐old infants played in an exploration phase with two objects made of different materials, one very heavy and the other one light and playable. Subsequently, when given the choice between both objects in a preferential reaching task, only the 11‐month‐olds' used the object's material information to remember and choose the lighter object. In study 2, 11‐ and 13‐month‐old infants underwent the same exploration phase. In the test phase, novel objects made of the same materials were offered. The 13‐ but not the 11‐month‐olds chose the objects made from the same material as the lighter object in the exploration phase. Additionally, infants' performances in the reaching task were positively correlated with their exploratory behaviour during the exploration phase. Altogether, the studies show a developmental progression in the use of an object's material information to guide infants' action. The results are discussed in respect to infants' perception of object properties and their implications for the development of physical knowledge. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".