Infants’ use of interpersonal asynchrony as a signal for third-party affiliation
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
Infants use social cues to form expectations about the social relationships of others. For example, they expect agents to approach helpful partners and avoid hindering partners. They expect individuals with shared food preferences to be affiliates and individuals with opposing food preferences to be nonaffiliates. Interpersonal synchrony and asynchrony are important signals that adults use to guide third-party understanding. Specifically, we expect synchronous partners to be higher in rapport than asynchronous partners. Here, using a within-subjects design, we investigated if 12- to 14-month-old infants ( n = 62) also use interpersonal synchrony and/or asynchrony to make sense of third-party social relationships. A violation of expectations paradigm adapted from Liberman and colleagues was used. Infant looking time was recorded while watching videos of two women. The women moved either synchronously or asynchronously during familiarization trials, and subsequently interacted either in a friendly way (waving) or an unfriendly way (turning away) on test trials. Results revealed that infants expected asynchronous partners to be nonaffiliates but showed no significant expectation for synchronous partners. These results suggest that infants use interpersonal movement to understand their social world from as early as 12 months of age.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it