MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2539559668 · doi:10.1075/gs.6.03mar

Does ontogenetic ritualization explain early communicative gestures in human infants?

2012· book-chapter· en· W2539559668 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

VenueGesture studies · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestureRitualizationOntogenyCommunicationSimilarity (geometry)PsychologyBiologyLinguisticsComputer scienceSociologyArtificial intelligenceAnthropologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter evaluates predictions that the origins of at least some gestures of human infants are shaped through ontogenetic ritualization (Clark 1978; Lock 1978; Tomasello 2008). To do so, we examine the development of five gesture types in four children between the ages of 6.5 and 11.5 months. This analysis supports a comparison between those gestures thought to be ritualized ( pick-me-up, graspindex ), with those that are socially learned ( wave, clap, clasp-hands ). Although some limited evidence for ritualization is found, developmental similarity amongst the five gesture types is strong. Through comparisons of gesture ontogeny between human and non-human primates, we explore the possible reasons for this result.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.294 · 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