MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117622130 · doi:10.1111/desc.70106

Infants and Adults Are Sensitive to the Costs of Upright Versus Non‐Upright Locomotion

2025· article· en· W7117622130 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institutes of HealthYork University
KeywordsCrawlingBiological motionTactile stimuliLocomotor activitySensitivity (control systems)Motor activity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variety in locomotor forms-upright (e.g., walking) versus non-upright (e.g., crawling)-reflects a "decision" about how to move. A decision about whether to move upright or non-upright reflects the costs incurred from getting into and moving in a particular posture-energy, stability, time, comfort, and so on. Are infants and caregivers sensitive to the immediate costs of upright and non-upright locomotion? We tested bout-level sensitivity to the costs of locomotor form in groups with different locomotor skills and body size (24 crawling and 24 walking infants and their caregivers). To encourage both short and long bouts, dyads played with toys clustered in a pile and toys dispersed around the room. Most critically, all groups showed bout-level sensitivity to the costs of upright and non-upright locomotion-they factored in their starting posture, typical mode of locomotion, and travel distance when deciding how to move. Walkers and caregivers only moved non-upright if they were already seated and traveled short distances; otherwise, they walked. Conversely, crawlers only moved upright if they were already standing and traveled short distances; if they were seated or moved long distances, they crawled. Moreover, across toy conditions, crawlers moved less than walkers and caregivers moved less than infants. Both crawlers and walkers displayed longer bouts when toys were dispersed, and caregivers mirrored their infants' activity. Thus, despite infants' propensity to move, babies-like adults-are indeed sensitive to the costs of upright versus non-upright locomotion. SUMMARY: Infants and caregivers showed bout-level sensitivity to locomotor costs by accounting for starting posture and travel distance when deciding whether to move upright or non-upright. Walkers and caregivers crawled when starting non-upright and traveling short distances; otherwise, they walked. Crawlers walked when starting upright and traveling nearby; otherwise, they crawled. Infants and caregivers moved more when toys were dispersed than when toys were clustered. Walkers moved more than crawlers, and infants moved more than caregivers. Despite infants' willingness to accumulate large amounts of seemingly gratuitous locomotion, infants, like adults, are sensitive to the varying, dynamic costs of different locomotor forms.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.252 · 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