MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407745990 · doi:10.1111/cdep.12544

Call for Non-Verbal Mind-Mindedness Measures for Use in Infancy and Across Cultures

2025· article· en· W4407745990 on OpenAlexafffund
Ann E. Bigelow

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development Perspectives · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyTheory of mindDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Maternal mind-mindedness, which examines mothers' representational capacity to treat their children as individuals with their own minds, has traditionally been operationalized by coding mothers' mental state comments to or about their children. Mind-mindedness has been studied predominantly in Western cultures, where it predicts children's social-cognitive developments. However, in many non-Western cultures, mothers do not readily talk about their children's mental states; they may use nonverbal behaviors to manifest their mind-mindedness. Nonverbal behaviors may also be the way mind-mindedness is conveyed to young infants. Theorists have been puzzled by the fact that mind-mindedness in mothers' speech prior to when infants understand language predicts infants' later social-cognitive developments. In this article, I call for mind-mindedness measures to include nonverbal behaviors. Such measures may reveal behaviors involved in communicating mind-mindedness to infants and provide an avenue to equitable investigations of mind-mindedness in diverse cultures, thus advancing the theory and scope of the field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Development PerspectivesSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207