MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766074685

Words and Shape Similiarity Guide 13-month-olds' Inferences about Nonobvious Object Properties

2001· article· en· W2766074685 on OpenAlexafffund
Susan A. Graham, Cari S. Kilbreath, Andrea N. Welder

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsSimilarity (geometry)PsychologyProperty (philosophy)Object (grammar)PremiseCognitionTest (biology)Cognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceSocial psychologyCognitive scienceComputer scienceLinguisticsEpistemologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the influence of shape similarity and object labels on 13-month-old infants' inductive inferences.In two experiments, infants were presented with novel target objects with or without a nonobvious property, followed by test objects that varied in shape similarity to the target.When objects were not labeled, infants generalized the nonobvious property to test objects that were highly similar in shape (Expt.1).When objects were labeled with novel nouns, infants generalized the nonobvious property to both high shape similarity and low shape similarity test objects (Expt.2).These findings indicate that infants as young as 13 months of age expect those objects which share the same shape or the same label to possess the same nonobvious property.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207