MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134635126 · doi:10.1111/infa.12106

What Atypical Adults Can Teach Us about Development

2015· article· en· W2134635126 on OpenAlexafffund
Daphne Maurer

Bibliographic record

VenueInfancy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMedical Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLuonnontieteiden ja Tekniikan Tutkimuksen ToimikuntaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthHuman Frontier Science ProgramJames S. McDonnell Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologySensory systemPerceptionEarly childhoodNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In my presidential address, I described the early trap I fell into of describing the super‐baby capable of one after another adult perceptual ability, then how I discovered that two atypical populations of adults allowed me to study developmental mechanisms, namely, the role of early sensory input in sculpting the nervous system and the biological preparedness that constrains the experiential effects. Specifically, studies of adults who had dense central cataracts during childhood revealed that there are multiple critical periods during which visual input alters the potential of the nervous system for later refinement. Studies of adults with synesthesia generated novel hypotheses, subsequently supported experimentally, about the details of the biological preparedness that bias the child's early learning. Nevertheless, later studies indicated that considerable residual plasticity remains in adulthood.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfancySame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207