MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403516938 · doi:10.1017/s0305000924000254

Testing the relationship between preferences for infant-directed speech and vocabulary development: A multi-lab study

2024· article· en· W4403516938 on OpenAlexafffund
Mélanie Söderström, Joscelin Rocha‐Hidalgo, Luis E. Muñoz, Agata Bochyńska, Janet F. Werker, Barbora Skarabela, Amanda Seidl, Yana Ryjova, Jennifer L. Rennels, Christine Potter, Markus Paulus, Mitsuhiko Ota, Nonah M. Olesen, Karli Nave, Julien Mayor, Alia Martin, Lauren C Machon, Casey Lew‐Williams, Eon‐Suk Ko, Hyunji Kim, Natalia Kartushina, Marina Kammermeier, Andrew Jessop, Jessica Hay, Naomi Havron, Erin E. Hannon, J. Kiley Hamlin, Nayeli Gonzalez‐Gomez, Anja Gampe, Tom Fritzsche, Michael C. Frank, Samantha Durrant, Catherine Davies, Cara H. Cashon, Krista Byers‐Heinlein, Veronica Boyce, Alexis K. Black, Christina Bergmann, Laura Anderson, Mohammed K. AlShakhori, Ali H. Al‐Hoorie, Angeline Tsui

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Language · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsPsychologyVocabularyVocabulary developmentLanguage developmentLanguage acquisitionLinguisticsDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From early on, infants show a preference for infant-directed speech (IDS) over adult-directed speech (ADS), and exposure to IDS has been correlated with language outcome measures such as vocabulary. The present multi-laboratory study explores this issue by investigating whether there is a link between early preference for IDS and later vocabulary size. Infants' preference for IDS was tested as part of the ManyBabies 1 project, and follow-up CDI data were collected from a subsample of this dataset at 18 and 24 months. A total of 341 (18 months) and 327 (24 months) infants were tested across 21 laboratories. In neither preregistered analyses with North American and UK English, nor exploratory analyses with a larger sample did we find evidence for a relation between IDS preference and later vocabulary. We discuss implications of this finding in light of recent work suggesting that IDS preference measured in the laboratory has low test-retest reliability.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child LanguageSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207