Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the present research was to investigate whether schematic biological motion serves as a cue to the concept of animacy in infancy. In order to present motion cues in the absence of bodily form cues, Michotte’s (1963) schematic biological motion stimuli (i.e., shape rhythmically expanding/contracting in the direction of movement) were used. The video animations displayed an amorphous shape moving in this way behind a screen (i.e., the shadow) and assessed looking patterns when the screen was removed to reveal either an animate or inanimate exemplar in the test phase. In Experiment 1, familiar exemplars of animate entities (i.e., dog, cow) were used as test items. In Experiment 2, the test objects were unfamiliar category exemplars associated with this type of motion (i.e., worm, caterpillar). Infants (10- and 18-months) looked longer when biological motion cues were congruent with the test items in Experiment 1, but 10-month-olds did not show differential looking across congruent and incongruent trials in Experiment 2. These findings suggest that the schematic biological motion stimulus does not serve as a primitive cue to the concept of animacy in infancy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".