MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159149804 · doi:10.1037/a0029382

How yellow is your banana? Toddlers' language-mediated visual search in referent-present tasks.

2012· article· en· W2159149804 on OpenAlexaff
Nivedita Mani, Elizabeth K. Johnson, James M. McQueen, Falk Huettig

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCategorization, perception, and language
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMax-Planck-GesellschaftGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsReferentPsychologySalience (neuroscience)LexiconToddlerVocabulary developmentCategorizationColor termMeaning (existential)VocabularyCognitive psychologyLinguisticsCommunicationArtificial intelligenceDevelopmental psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the relative salience of different aspects of word meaning in the developing lexicon? The current study examines the time-course of retrieval of semantic and color knowledge associated with words during toddler word recognition: At what point do toddlers orient toward an image of a yellow cup upon hearing color-matching words such as "banana" (typically yellow) relative to unrelated words (e.g., "house")? Do children orient faster to semantic matching images relative to color matching images, for example, orient faster to an image of a cookie relative to a yellow cup upon hearing the word "banana"? The results strongly suggest a prioritization of semantic information over color information in children's word-referent mappings. This indicates that even for natural objects (e.g., food, animals that are more likely to have a prototypical color), semantic knowledge is a more salient aspect of toddler's word meaning than color knowledge. For 24-month-old Dutch toddlers, bananas are thus more edible than they are yellow.

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)0.009
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations37
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychologySame topicCategorization, perception, and languageFrench-language works237,207