MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955587257 · doi:10.1075/gest.18005.ket

From touching to communicating

2018· article· en· W2955587257 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 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndex fingerGestureIndex (typography)Extension (predicate logic)PsychologyNonverbal communicationDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyCommunicationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsPhilosophyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Infants can extend their index fingers soon after birth, yet pointing gestures do not emerge until about 10 to 12 months. In the present study, we draw on the process-relational view, according to which pointing develops as infants learn how others respond to their initially non-communicative index finger use. We report on a longitudinal maternal diary study of 15 infants and describe four types of index finger use in the first year. Analysis of the observations suggests one possible developmental pathway: index finger extension becomes linked to infants’ attention around 7 to 9 months of age with the emergence of fingertip exploration and index finger extension towards out-of-reach objects infants wish to explore. Through parental responses infants begin to use index finger touch to refer in some situations, including asking and answering questions and to request, suggesting that some functions of pointing might originate in early index finger use.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.306 · 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