MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163097816 · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00312

Six-Month-Old Infants' Preference for Lexical Words

2001· article· en· W2163097816 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

VenuePsychological Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPreferenceLinguisticsLexicoLexical diversityGrammatical categoryHabituationLexical decision taskLexiconLexical itemNounVocabularyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous work has shown that newborn infants categorically discriminate the fundamental syntactic category distinction between lexical and grammatical words. In this article, we show that by the age of 6 months, infants prefer to listen to lexical over grammatical words. In Experiment 1, infants were habituated to a list of either lexical or grammatical words, and then tested on new lists of words from the same and the contrasting categories. The infants showed recovery to lexical words after habituation to grammatical words but not vice versa. This asymmetry indicates a possible preference for lexical words. In Experiments 2 and 3, preference was assessed directly by presenting infants with alternating trials of lexical and grammatical words, in the central-fixation preference procedure. The infants looked significantly longer during lexical-word than grammatical-word trials. These results show that by 6 months, infants attend preferentially to lexical words. The implications of this emerging attentional preference for subsequent language acquisition are discussed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.313 · 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