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
Abstract The findings of this study add to the growing number of reports in which investigators claim to have located adult second language learners who, under rigorous test conditions, manage to pass as native speakers in L2. The aims of this paper were two, first, to provide a detailed account of how we tested and qualified our Anglophones as native-like speakers of French and, second, to suggest that, interesting as our data were, more questions emerge than do answers. Seven of 18 English/French bilinguals, having acquired L2 after the age of 16, were selected by means of a pre-test interview with three Francophones as “potentially of French-speaking background.” These seven, along with three Francophone controls, recited an 81-word passage in French onto a tape-recorder. Sixty-eight native-speaking French raters, of similar dialectal background and weak in English, each heard one of four tapes with differing random roders of the 10 passages, their task being to designate each voice as “Franco-phone” or “non-Francophone.” Four of our seven English-Franch bilinguals obtained ratings statistically comparable to those of our three Francophone controls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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 it