Automated Measures of Force and Motion Can Improve Our Understanding of Infants’ Motor Persistence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every day, young learners are confronted with challenges. The degree to which they persist in overcoming those challenges, and the different ways they persist, provides critical insights into the various cognitive, motoric, and affective processes that drive behavior. Here, we present a systematic overview of the methodologies that have been traditionally used to study persistence, and offer suggestions for new approaches to the study of persistence that will make strides in moving the field forward. We argue that automated measures of force and motion, which have long been used in the study of infants’ motoric behavior, can provide a means to unravel the psychological processes that guide infants’ trying behavior. To illustrate this, we present a case study that highlights the novel lessons to be learned by the use of automated measures of force and motion regarding infants’ persistence, along with an analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of this approach, as well as detailed instructions for application. In sum, we conclude that these measures, when used in conjunction with more traditional approaches, will provide creative new insights into the nature and development of early persistence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".