Infant‐directed communication in Tanna, Vanuatu and Vancouver, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is known that infant‐directed speech (IDS) plays a key role in language development. Previous research, however, has also identified significant variability across societies in terms of how often IDS occurs. For example, some studies report very little IDS in non‐western, small‐scale societies – including children growing up in small‐scale societies in Tanna, Vanuatu. This is surprising given that IDS is widely assumed as a common feature of human caregiving based on research conducted in urbanised populations which are more well‐studied. Here, we propose that IDS is only one of a suite of important caregiving behaviours that are produced during interactions with infants, which may vary by culture, perhaps being replaced by other, non‐verbal infant‐directed behaviours (IDB). We will examine previously collected data consisting of 94 semi‐structured 10‐min video observations of caregivers and their 18–24 month‐old children in rural Tanna, Vanuatu and urban Vancouver, Canada to identify and compare the proportion of time caregivers spend engaging in IDS and IDB during these interactions, both within and between societies. We define IDS as caregiver speech or vocalisations during the interaction with the infant, and we define IDB as non‐verbal behaviours that are produced with the infant during the interaction. This study aims to take a step towards a more generalised understanding of language development in children, moving beyond the urban and western societies in which our understanding of development is currently based, and the predicted results will aid in recognising different developmental pathways within multi‐cultural communities.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".