Exploring 3- and 11-month-olds' understanding of social versus nonsocial goals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in the cognitive sciences has demonstrated infants’ remarkable ability to mentalize, such as their capacity for goal attribution (Woodward, 1998). However, failed replications of seminal findings have brought into question the strength of such capacities. One possibility is that infants are likely to mentalize in socially relevant/evaluative contexts (Woo et al., 2023). In two pre-registered studies, the present work investigated this possibility by testing whether 3-month-olds (via VoE; Woodward, 1998) and 11-month-olds (via anticipatory looking; Cannon & Woodward, 2012) will show stronger evidence of goal attribution for social versus nonsocial goals. Preliminary analyses revealed surprising results: Three-month-olds (N=52) show evidence of attributing location goals only in the social condition. By contrast, 11-month-olds (N=36) showed the reverse: Their anticipatory eye-movements showed evidence of attributing location goals in the nonsocial condition. The poster will present data from the full target sample (N=64) and further interpret these novel findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".