Neuroplasticity as a model for bilingualism: Commentary on Baum and Titone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inevitable decline of cognitive function with aging and the high incidence of clinical impairment make understanding the process of cognitive decline and the search for remediation an urgent priority. However, in spite of massive efforts in research and development, the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for cognitive impairment remains extremely limited (Zhu et al., in press). Therefore, there is growing interest in the set of lifestyle factors that serve to maintain cognitive function even in the presence of neuropathology. These factors, called cognitive reserve (Stern, 2002), include education, occupational status, socioeconomic class, and involvement in physical, intellectual, and social activities (Bennett, Schneider, Tang, Arnold, & Wilson, 2006; Stern et al., 1994). Bilingualism appears to be another potent source of cognitive reserve (Bialystok, Craik, Green, & Gollan, 2009). For these reasons, a comprehensive review of the small but growing literature on bilingualism and cognition in aging is timely and scientifically important.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.051 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".