MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Concept Selection and Developmental Effects in Bilingual Speech Production

2009· article· en· W2137112125 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Learning · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySelection (genetic algorithm)Stroop effectLinguisticsSpeech productionTask (project management)Neuroscience of multilingualismLanguage productionTask analysisLanguage acquisitionLanguage proficiencyPhonologyCognitive psychologyCognitionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigates the locus of language selection in less and more proficient language learners, specifically testing differential predictions of La Heij's (2005) concept selection model (CSM) and Kroll and Stewart's (1994) revised hierarchical model (RHM). Less and more proficient English dominant learners of Spanish participated in a Stroop translation task that included semantically related and unrelated word or picture distracters. The results for the more proficient learners provide support for the CSM as well as the RHM. The results for the less proficient learners provide support for the RHM and demonstrate the continued reliance on lexical level links and the difficulty in accessing the conceptual store during second language production. The selection by proficiency model of bilingual speech production is discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · 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