MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167660749 · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00240

Is Infant-Directed Speech Prosody a Result of the Vocal Expression of Emotion?

2000· article· en· W2167660749 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 · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsodyPsychologySurpriseExpression (computer science)RhythmStyle (visual arts)CommunicationSpeech recognitionAcousticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many studies have found that infant-directed (ID) speech has higher pitch, has more exaggerated pitch contours, has a larger pitch range, has a slower tempo, and is more rhythmic than typical adult-directed (AD) speech. We show that the ID speech style reflects free vocal expression of emotion to infants, in comparison with more inhibited expression of emotion in typical AD speech. When AD speech does express emotion, the same acoustic features are used as in ID speech. We recorded ID and AD samples of speech expressing love-comfort, fear, and surprise. The emotions were equally discriminable in the ID and AD samples. Acoustic analyses showed few differences between the ID and AD samples, but robust differences across the emotions. We conclude that ID prosody itself is not special. What is special is the widespread expression of emotion to infants in comparison with the more inhibited expression of emotion in typical adult interactions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.396 · 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