Examining variation in early language environments using child-centered long-form audio-recordings
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The present project seeks to answer the question: which factors predict variation in children's spoken input? Previous research has shown that children from different backgrounds are exposed to different amounts of child-directed speech (e.g. Cristia, 2022, Developmental Science). Bunce et al. (2020) studied similarities as well as differences across corpora in quantity and sources of children's input based on human annotations of 69 children across 7 corpora from various cultural contexts. Their analyses suggested that several factors explained variance in the amount of speech afforded to infants, including the child's age and the type of speakers. Surprisingly, the authors concluded that there was little cross-population variation in the quantity of speech directed to children, counter Cristia, 2022. Their analyses also suggest that there is important cross-population variation in total quantity of speech afforded to young children, due to cross-population variation in the quantity of overheard speech. Given the importance of better understanding the extent of population variation, in this paper, we revisit the same corpora included in Bunce's paper: Bergelson/SeedLings, Warlaumont, Winnipeg/McDivitt, LuCiD, Rosemberg, Tseltal, and Rossel. We want to pre-register the present analyses to test hypotheses based both on previous literature and Bunce et al. We believe our results may be different from those found in Bunce et al for several reasons: Here we will include all children, and not just the 9-10 in each corpus that had human annotation, which means that we have greater statistical power. Here, we employ automated annotation, rather than human annotation, allowing us to represent each child through all of their recorded data, rather than the 30 minutes that were human-annotated. This may mean greater accuracy (based on more, and potentially more representative of a day’s experience, data) or not (because we rely on automated annotations, which may be less accurate than human annotation). Here, we need to adapt the definition of key child directed speech (KCDS) and overhearable speech (OHS) to our automated annotations. KCDS is the speech specifically directed towards the key child; OHS is the speech that is not directed towards the key child, but available around the key child, which can be distant or background. While Bunce et al. defined KCDS based on content and context, our study relies on automated annotations. Therefore, we cannot utilize content-based features. Instead, we will use the human-annotated data to set parameters for defining KCDS based on temporal information alone. We describe how we will do this in the variables section below.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,014 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle