An automated version of the BAT Syntactic Comprehension task for assessing auditory L2 proficiency in healthy adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of bilingualism sometimes require healthy subjects to be assessed for proficiency at auditory sentence processing in their second language (L2). The Syntactic Comprehension task of the Bilingual Aphasia Test could satisfy this need. For ease and uniformity of application, we automated its English ( Paradis, M., Libben, G., and Hummel, K. (1987) . The Bilingual Aphasia Test. English version. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) and French ( Paradis, M., & Goldblum, M. C. (1987) . The Bilingual Aphasia Test, French version. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) versions. Although the Bilingual Aphasia Test is meant to assess neurological disorders affecting language, we hypothesised that ceiling performance in L2 would be rare and L2 errors should be consistent with lack of processing automaticity. Initial data from 13 French-English and 4 English-French bilinguals confirm these expectations. Thus, the automated Syntactic Comprehension task (available online for PC and Mac platforms) is indeed suited to test bilingual English and French proficiency levels in healthy adults.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".