“The chug is coming through!” “There's two chuggas!”: A longitudinal study of the social function of imitation in children's play with siblings and friends
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Imitation is argued to have an important affiliative function in social relationships. However, children's tendency to imitate different play partners during naturalistic play and associations with social understanding have been overlooked. We investigated the frequency and context of imitation in a longitudinal study of 65 focal children (T1: M age = 56.4 months, SD = 5.71) during play with their older or younger sibling and a friend in two separate play sessions. Children were observed again approximately 3 years later (T2: n = 46, M age = 94.6 months; SD = 6.6). We coded focal children's verbal and nonverbal imitation of their play partner, their partner's response to being imitated, the context in which imitation occurred (e.g., pretense), and the focal child's social understanding (i.e., mental state references). Verbal imitation occurred more often than nonverbal imitation and was used most often during the contexts of play negotiations and pretense. Although focal children's imitation of both their siblings and friends increased significantly over time, children imitated friends more than siblings at T1. All play partners responded positively (i.e., smiling, laughing) most often to being imitated. Associations between focal child imitation and mental state talk with friends at T2 approached significance. Our findings provide a deeper understanding of the nature of imitation during children's play interactions and support assertions that imitation is a process whereby children build affiliation, mutuality, and shared meanings in their relationships.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it