MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018740037 · doi:10.1121/1.2338285

Cross-language sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in infants

2006· article· en· W2018740037 on OpenAlexaff
Sachiyo Kajikawa, Laurel Fais, Ryoko Mugitani, Janet F. Werker, Shigeaki Amano

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhonotacticsHabituationPsychologyLanguage acquisitionLinguisticsTest (biology)Language developmentAudiologyPhonologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored sensitivity to word-level phonotactic patterns in English and Japanese monolingual infants. Infants at the ages of 6, 12, and 18 months were tested on their ability to discriminate between test words using a habituation-switch experimental paradigm. All of the test words, neek, neeks, and neekusu, are phonotactically legitimate for English, whereas the first two words are critically noncanonical in Japanese. The language-specific phonotactical congruence influenced infants' performance in discrimination. English-learning infants could discriminate between neek and neeks at the age of 18 months, but Japanese infants could not. There was a similar developmental pattern for infants of both language groups for discrimination of neek and neeks, but Japanese infants showed a different trajectory from English infants for neekusu/neeks. These differences reflect the different status of these word patterns with respect to the phonotactics of both languages, and reveal early sensitivity to subtle phonotactic and language input patterns in each language.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207