MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Input Properties, Vocabulary Size, and L1 on the Development of Third Person Singular –<i>s</i> in Child L2 English

2012· article· en· W2156906445 on OpenAlexaff
Elma Blom, Johanne Paradis, Tamara Sorenson Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Learning · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflectionPsychologyLexiconLinguisticsLanguage acquisitionVocabulary developmentVocabularyPerspective (graphical)Language developmentPhonological developmentFirst languageSecond languagePhonologyDevelopmental psychologyMathematics educationArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was designed to investigate the development of third‐person singular (3SG) – s in children who learn English as a second language (L2). Adopting the usage‐based perspective on the learning of inflection, we analyzed spontaneous speech samples collected from 15 English L2 children who were followed over a 2‐year period. Assessing the contribution of a wide range of predictors, we show that word frequency, allomorph, lexicon size, inflectional properties of the first language (L1), and months of exposure to English all have impact on English L2 children's use of 3SG – s in obligatory contexts. This study enhances both our understanding of the development of 3SG – s and of child L2 acquisition. The outcomes support a usage‐based approach to learning inflection and emphasize the importance of a multifactorial analysis of language development.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations149
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage LearningSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207