Do Early Nouns Refer to Kinds or Distinct Shapes?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the nature of early words? Specifically, do infants expect words for objects to refer to kinds or to distinct shapes? The current study investigated this question by testing whether 10-month-olds expect internal object properties to be predicted by linguistic labels. A looking-time method was employed. Infants were familiarized with pairs of identical or different objects that made identical or different sounds. During test, before the sounds were demonstrated, paired objects were labeled with one repeated count-noun label or two distinct labels. Results showed that infants expected objects labeled with distinct labels to make different sounds and objects labeled with repeated labels to make identical sounds, regardless of the objects' appearance. These findings indicate that the 10-month-olds' expectations about internal properties of objects were driven by labeling and provide evidence that even at the beginning of word learning, infants expect distinct labels to refer to different kinds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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 it