The Effect of Maternal Mirroring Behavior on Infants’ Early Social Bidding During the Still‐Face Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maternal mirroring behavior, which is a particularly salient form of maternal responsiveness, was investigated as a predictor of infants’ social bids in the Still‐Face Task. Mother–infant dyads engaged in the Still‐Face Task when infants were 5 months, on the cusp of the active emergence of social bidding during the still‐face phase of the task. Maternal mirroring of infants’ behavior during the interactive phases of the task was a primary predictor of infants’ social bids in the still‐face phase. When infants were divided into those who experienced higher maternal mirroring (maternal mirroring above the mean of the sample) and infants who experienced lower maternal mirroring (maternal mirroring at or below the mean), infants with higher maternal mirroring showed increases in nondistress vocalizations during the still‐face phase, indicative of social bidding, whereas the infants with lower maternal mirroring showed little change in nondistress vocalizations across the phases. Maternal mirroring allows infants to readily notice the relation between their own behaviors and those of their mothers, which may enhance infants’ early understanding that they can be active agents in instigating social interactions, as demonstrated by social bidding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".