Social Brain Perspectives on the Social and Evolutionary Neuroscience of Human Language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human language and social cognition are two key disciplines that have traditionally been studied as separate domains. However, emerging research from detailed studies of comparative animal behavior, human social behavior, language acquisition in children, social cognitive neuroscience, and the cognitive neuroscience of language suggest that language and social cognition are two deeply interrelated capacities of the human species. For instance, recent developmental studies on the acquisition of language in infants and young children, draw attention to the important crucial benefits associated with several different aspects of social stimulation for youngsters, including the quantity and quality of linguistic input, dyadic infant/child-to-parent verbal and non-verbal social interactions, and other important social cues integral for facilitating language learning and social bonding. Studies of the adult human brain further suggest a high degree of specialization for sociolinguistic information processing, memory retrieval, and comprehension, suggesting the function of these regions may link language with social cognition and social bonding. In effect, the social brain and social complexity hypotheses may jointly help to explain how neurotypical children and adults learn language, why autistic adults and children exhibit simultaneous deficits in language and social cognition, and why nonhuman primates and other animals with significant computational abilities do not acquire the capacity for language. But perhaps most critically, the following article argues that this and related research will allow scientists to generate a holistic profile and deeper understanding of the healthy adult social brain, while developing more innovative and effective diagnoses, prognoses, and treatments for maladies and deficits also associated with the social brain.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".