Theory of Mind, Aesthetic Judgment and Child Development Issues: A Narrative Review / Théorie de l’esprit, jugement esthétique et enjeux du développement de l’enfant : un compte rendu narratif
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The Theory of Mind (ToM) is an empathy related concept that refers to the ability of attributing mental states to oneself and to others. ToM is present throughout the process of aesthetic judgment and essential for an aesthetic experience to happen. We present a narrative overview of four influential studies that propose a developmental model of aesthetic judgment in children and we discuss their inherent relationship with ToM. We argue that ToM permeates the four suggested models, although not expressly mentioned in them, and conclude that ToM cannot be separated from the aesthetic experience in the context of child development.Keywords: Art Appreciation; Aesthetic Experience; Aesthetic Judgment; Child Development; Empathy; Imagination; Shared meaning; Theory of Mind (ToM). Résumé : La théorie de l’esprit désigne un concept lié à l’empathie, qui relève de la capacité d’attribuer des états mentaux, à soi-même et à autrui. La théorie de l’esprit est inhérente au processus de jugement esthétique et indispensable au vécu de l’expérience esthétique. Nous proposons ici un compte rendu narratif de quatre études déterminantes qui introduisent un modèle développemental du jugement esthétique chez l’enfant et analysons sa relation étroite avec la théorie de l’esprit. Nous affirmons que la théorie de l’esprit imprègne les quatre modèles suggérés, bien qu’elle n’y soit pas exprimée directement, et qu’elle ne peut donc être dissociée de l’expérience esthétique au niveau du développement de l’enfant.Mots-clés : connaissance des arts ; expérience esthétique ; jugement esthétique ; développement de l’enfant ; empathie ; imagination ; sens commun ; théorie de l’esprit.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".