The role of prosody in infants' early syntactic analysis and grammatical categorization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested the hypothesis that phrasal prosody assists early syntactic acquisition. Stimulus-sentences consisting of French determiners and pseudo-lexical-words were ambiguous between two syntactic structures, e.g., [[TonDet felliAdj craleN]NP [vurV laDet gosineN]VP] versus [[TonDet felliN]NP [craleV vurPrep laDet gosineN]VP], which had distinct prosodic cues. French-learning 20-month-olds were familiarized with the sentences either in the prosody of one structure, or the other structure. All infants were tested with Det + N (e.g., LeDet craleN) versus Pron + V (e.g., TuPron cralesV) trials containing non-familiarized functors. Infants perceived the test-stimuli according to the familiarized structure. They used prosody to categorize words and interpret adjacent and non-adjacent syntactic dependencies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".