Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary on the preceding six articles focuses on three issues concerning simultaneous and successive acquisition in early childhood which are addressed directly or indirectly in the contributions under discussion. The first issue concerns crosslinguistic interaction. It is argued that the evidence presented here speaks in favour of autonomous grammatical development in simultaneous bilingualism. Crosslinguistic interaction seems to happen only when grammatical knowledge is activated, i.e. in language use. The second problem area discussed here concerns the respective roles of input, universal mechanisms, and age of onset of acquisition as factors determining the course of acquisition. The claim is that these and other variables all contribute to an explanation of developmental sequences in monolingual and bilingual first language acquisition but that quantitative properties of the input do not override universal principles in the domain of grammar. The third point consists in emphasizing the role of second language speakers as role models for bilingual children. This provides an explanation of contact-induced change in core areas of grammar where, otherwise, empirical evidence does not support the claim of crosslinguistic interaction in bilingual children acquiring two languages simultaneously. It also constitutes a plausible scenario accounting for diachronic grammatical change.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".