Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter challenges the hypothesis that the type of social impairment observed in children with autism is evidence of a specific underlying malfunction in a ‘theory of mind mechanism’, resulting in ‘mindblindness’. To establish this point, the chapter takes up two interesting ideas in the ‘Theory of Mind’ literature, but purged of their Cartesianism: first that the study of autism does indeed provide us with critical insights into the development of social understanding and empathy. And second, that no meaningful distinction can be drawn between a child’s interpersonal and intrapersonal development. The chapter seeks to show how the ability to understand someone else’s thoughts and emotions is a product of countless co-regulated interactions with a caregiver in which develop the child’s own emotions and sense of self, as well as her understanding of what others are thinking and feeling, what they believe or intend to do. One of the reasons why children with autism so frequently exhibit impaired social relatedness is because basic biological challenges — such as sensory over- and under-reactivity, social motivation and attentional failures — inhibit their ability to engage in these co-regulated interactive experiences across the developmental landscape.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".