The role of a child's productive vocabulary in the language choice of a bilingual family
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While bilingual children's code-mixing was once taken as a sign that they had confused their languages, many studies have now shown that bilingual children can differentiate their languages from very early in development. Why, then, do they code-mix? This study examined several factors that might contribute to a Brazilian Portuguese-English bilingual boy's code-mixing within the context of the family's language use. He was filmed every week in two observation sessions from age 1;0 to 1;6: one with his Portuguese-speaking father and one with his English-speaking mother. The results showed that about 90% of the child's code- mixing could be accounted for by lexical gaps in one language. Furthermore, the parents' code-mixing could often be accounted for by switching to use words that are in the child's productive vocabulary. These results are discussed in terms of the family's creative use of the child's limited linguistic resources.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it