Monolingual and Bilingual Children With and Without Primary Language Impairment: Core Vocabulary Comparison
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
Core vocabulary is an important component of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems for school-aged children who have complex communication needs. One method of identifying core vocabulary for these individuals is to study the vocabulary of speaking children. To date, the use of core vocabulary by speaking bilingual children has not been well documented. The present study compared the core vocabulary used by children who are monolingual (French), and bilingual (French-English; English-French). We also gathered and compared language samples from French-speaking children identified as having primary language impairment (PLI), with the goal of better understanding the language differences demonstrated by children with this disability. Language samples were collected from a total of 57 children within a school setting, in a region where French is a minority language. Contrary to the hypothesis, the analysis of language transcripts revealed that there were no important differences between the core words from the groups studied.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it