Discours, gestes et dominance linguistique : une étude développementale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé L’objectif principal de cette étude est d’examiner l’effet de la dominance linguistique sur l’utilisation des gestes auprès d’une population d’enfants bilingues. Vingt enfants bilingues âgés de 6 à 10 ans, répartis en deux groupes en fonction de leur pratique scolaire de la narration, ont été enregistrés pendant qu’ils restituaient les histoires racontées. Les résultats tendent à vérifier l’idée selon laquelle les enfants bilingues simultanés font plus de gestes dans leur langue dominante, quelle que soit la catégorie des gestes considérée. la dominance linguistique est liée à la proportion de gestes que produisent les enfants. Ces résultats sont discutés relativement aux travaux actuels traitant des relations entre la dominance linguistique et les gestes et prennent en considération la possibilité d’un effet de difficulté de la tâche comme facteur explicatif.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".