MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110663996 · doi:10.1111/cdev.13474

Differences in Established Joint Attention in Hearing-Hearing and Hearing-Deaf Mother-Child Dyads: Associations With Social Competence, Settings, and Tasks

2020· article· en· W3110663996 on OpenAlexafffund
Taigan L. MacGowan, Susan L. Tasker, Louis A. Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaMcMaster University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyJoint attentionDyadDevelopmental psychologyHearing lossAudiologySocial competenceCompetence (human resources)ToddlerSocial relationSocial changeAutismSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The authors examined relations among observed joint attention, maternal report of child’s social competence, setting (home vs. laboratory), task (unstructured vs. semi-structured), and dyad type [hearing mother–hearing child (n = 55, Mage = 25.8 months) vs. hearing mother–deaf child (n = 27, Mage = 26.9 months)]. Hearing child dyads scored higher on joint attention during unstructured tasks, especially in their home environment. Hearing child dyads displayed similar joint attention to deaf toddler dyads when they engaged in a semi-structured task, but higher on these measures during unstructured free play. Unlike hearing children, joint attention was differentially related to social competence in deaf children, with relatively higher versus lower social competence depending on relatively high versus low observed joint attention, respectively.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207