What Can We Perceive in Infant Vocalization?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infant language development includes a complex social dynamic between adults and infants. Infant vocalization is a well-studied area of development, however adult perception of infant vocalization is less well-understood. The effectiveness of identifications made by adults may impact the social feedback loops that drive development. We collected data from a final sample of 460 undergraduate students who listened to brief (100-500 ms) audio clips of infant vocalization. Participants were asked to identify infants in the audio clips as male/female, English/non-English, and their approximate age. Participants were unable to determine the sex of the infant better than chance but showed better than chance performance for language and age, albeit with low accuracy. Exploratory follow-up analyses did not reveal an effect of caregiving experience, childcare experience, or participant gender on a participants’ ability to correctly identify the infant’s age, sex, or language. These findings suggest that adult caregivers, regardless of experience, are able to perceive elements of infant vocalizations that may influence responsiveness to infant vocal development. However, performance is far from perfect.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".