MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145810838 · doi:10.1177/0963721412449459

How Do Infants Become Experts at Native-Speech Perception?

2012· article· en· W2145810838 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

VenueCurrent Directions in Psychological Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningSpeech perceptionPsychologyPerceptionMechanism (biology)Language acquisitionContext (archaeology)PhenomenonFirst languageCognitive psychologyLinguisticsCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infants begin life ready to learn any of the world’s languages, but they quickly become speech-perception experts in their native language. Although this phenomenon has been well described, the mechanisms leading to native-language-listening expertise have not. In this article, we provide an in-depth review of one learning mechanism: distributional learning (DL), which has been shown to be important in phonetic category learning. DL is a domain-general statistical learning mechanism that involves tracking the relative frequency of phonetic tokens in speech input. Although DL is powerful, recent research has identified limitations to it as well. We conclude with a discussion of possible supplementary phonetic-learning mechanisms, which focuses on the surrounding context in which infants hear phonetic tokens and how it can augment DL and highlight important linguistic differences between perceptually similar stimuli.

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)0.001
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 score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.362 · 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