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
In this study we consider the role of cross-linguistic influence in the domain of wh -movement and subject-verb inversion in children simultaneously acquiring Dutch and French, two typologically different languages. Wh -questions were elicited in Dutch by means of an elicited production task. The participants consisted of 5- and 7-year-old Dutch-French bilingual children, and two control groups of monolingual Dutch children and adults (N = 46). Target-like wh -fronted questions with subject-verb inversion formed the majority of responses. However, two qualitatively different structures were produced as a result of transfer from French: wh -in-situ questions and wh -fronted questions without inversion. Structural overlap approaches to transfer can predict cross-linguistic influence from the language with more structural options (French) to the one with only one interrogative construction (Dutch). However, we argue that a complexity-based theory of transfer provides a better account for the presence of the attested structures than a structural overlap approach.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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