MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088635009 · doi:10.1177/13670069020060040401

Learning English and losing Chinese: A case study of a child adopted from China

2002· article· en· W2088635009 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elena Nicoladis, Howard Grabois

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Bilingualism · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaLanguage acquisitionPsychologyComprehensionSecond-language acquisitionLinguisticsFocus (optics)Language transferFirst languageDevelopmental psychologyComprehension approachSociologyHistoryLanguage educationMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies of early language acquisition show that children focus on the language in their environment toward the end of the first year. This study concerned the acquisition of English and the loss of Chinese by a child adopted from China into an English-speaking family in Canada at the age of 17 months. As she was adopted after the age of one year, her switch to English might be expected to be slow and difficult. The child's production and comprehension of Chinese and English were observed from four weeks after her arrival. Her acquisition of English was remarkably fast, as was her loss of Chinese. These data suggest that the child's language acquisition was founded on already established social and communicative processes. Her previous exposure to Chinese may have allowed her to learn about language use in general, thus facilitating her rapid acquisition of English.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations76
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BilingualismSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207