MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536866420 · doi:10.1075/eurosla.16.01sab

Language processing in bilinguals

2016· article· en· W2536866420 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Sabourin, Michèle Burkholder, Santa Vīnerte, Jean-Christophe Leclerc, Christie Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueEUROSLA Yearbook · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscience of multilingualismLexiconMental lexiconCognitionPsychologyAge of AcquisitionCognitive psychologyLinguisticsNaturalismSet (abstract data type)Control (management)Computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we integrate and reinterpret new data from a set of experiments in our lab in order to tease apart many of the factors thought to influence bilingual processing. Specifically we combine data from studies investigating age of immersion (AoI), manner of acquisition (MoA), proficiency and context of bilingualism to (1) investigate the organization of the bilingual mental lexicon and (2) determine the nature of the interaction between bilingualism and cognitive control. We suggest that a naturalistic MoA promotes the integration of the bilingual lexicon, and that an early AoI per se is somewhat less important (though it tends to lead to a more naturalistic MoA). Further, bilinguals with an integrated bilingual lexicon (i.e., naturalistic learners) only develop cognitive control advantages if they are in a dual-language environment.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEUROSLA YearbookSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207