Child-Directed Communication in Two Diverse Cultural Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caregivers and other adults modify their speech when addressing infants, but there is significant variability across societies regarding the prevalence of this behavior, known as infant-directed speech (IDS). For example, some studies report significantly less IDS in some less-well-studied societies – including families on Tanna, Vanuatu. This is surprising given that IDS is widely assumed to be a prominent feature of human caregiving, based on research with sample populations in urban regions. Given the variability across cultures in the amount of IDS that children hear in the first few years of life, it is possible that IDS is only one of a suite of important caregiving behaviours that are produced during interactions with infants and young children. To have a better understanding of the range of variability in infant-directed speech and communication with young children, we examined 70 semi-structured video recorded observations of caregivers and their 18- to 24-month-old children living on Tanna, Vanuatu, and Vancouver, Canada. The video observations were 10 minutes long and were collected between 2013 and 2018. We had two kinds of observations – one where we provided a set of toys and one without toys. We determined the duration of time caregivers spent engaging in both verbal and non-verbal interactions with their children using five different interaction codes: Infant-directed 1) speech, 2) behavior, 3) communication (simultaneous speech and behavior), 4) Solo (no interaction), and 4) ANI (attentive non-interference, which was when caregivers looked at their infant but did not direct any behaviours). Caregivers in both societies spent a comparable amount of time interacting with their children during the observations. However, the specific modes of interaction varied across cultural contexts. Caregivers in Vancouver were slightly more likely to use IDS across both sessions, whereas those on Tanna used more IDB, particularly in the Toys session, and more IDC, particularly in the No toys session. Solo interactions were ere minimal, andANI was more frequent in Tanna across both sessions, but particularly when infants had toys. This study aims to contribute to a broader understanding of children’s early experiences with caregivers, moving beyond the urban and western societies that have dominated most of the existing research. The findings provide further evidence in support of variability in the social context of young children across diverse social contexts.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".