MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6944066182 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/68uab

Eye-tracking investigation of infants' understanding of social versus nonsocial goals

2023· other· en· W6944066182 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttributionObject (grammar)Social cognitionCognitionTheory of mindResource (disambiguation)Test (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A wealth of research in the cognitive sciences have demonstrated that human's ability to mentalize emerge early in infancy; for example, infants and toddlers represent others' goals (e.g., Woodward, 1998; Cannon & Woodward, 2012). However, failed replications of seminal findings (e.g., Ganglmayer et al., 2019) have brought into question the strength of infants' capacity to mentalize. Given the high resource demand of mentalizing, one possibility is that infants may be more likely to mentalize in contexts that are more relevant to themselves, such as socially evaluative contexts (Woo et al., 2023). Indeed, whether an agent prefers object A versus object B is a trivial matter to the infant, and thus not "worth" expending resources to mentalize; on the other hand, whether an agent prefers agent A or agent B might have consequences for infants; for example, on their own downstream social affiliations. The present work seeks to follow up on this possibility by investigating one of the most basic forms of mentalizing: Goal attribution. Specifically, this project will examine whether infants at 11 months of age, the earliest age at which goal attribution has been demonstrated via anticipatory eye-gaze (Cannon & Woodward, 2012), will be more likely to predictive eye movements suggestive of goal attribution when the goals in question are social versus when they are nonsocial in nature. Closely adapting the methodology of Cannon & Woodward (2012), 11-month-olds will first watch three trials in which a human protagonist approaches target A over target B; then the targets will switch places, and infants watch one test trial in which the protagonist moves ambiguously towards both targets, but never approaches either. Critically, the targets in question will either be social (i.e., other human agents) or nonsocial (i.e. physical objects). Given that 11-month-olds have not consistently shown goal-directed anticipatory looking (Ganglmayer et al., 2019), we predict that infants in our sample will show more anticipatory looking in the social condition than the nonsocial condition. Specifically, we predict that infants in the social condition will be more likely to predictively look at the original target during the test trial compared to the nonsocial condition (results as in Cannon & Woodward, 2012).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207