MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391040902 · doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2024.101923

Infants’ pointing at nine months is associated with maternal sensitivity but not vocabulary

2024· article· en· W4391040902 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfant Behavior and Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVocabularyDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyMaternal sensitivityLanguage developmentPoint (geometry)LinguisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infants often start pointing toward the end of their first year of life. Pointing shows a strong link to language, perhaps because parents label what infants point to. In the present study, we tested whether 9-month-olds' pointing was related to parental sensitivity and concurrent and subsequent vocabulary scores. Observations were made of 88 9-month-old infants in free-play situations with their mothers. Less than half the infants produced at least one index-finger point. The mothers' reactions to their infants' behaviour were coded for sensitivity. The mothers of the infants who pointed were less directing and responded more contingently than the mothers of the infants who did not point. However, there was no difference in vocabulary scores of pointers and non-pointers, either concurrently or at 12 and 18 months of age. These results could mean that parents' reactions play an important role in shaping pointing to be communicative.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.249 · 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