MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621926793

Factors that Influence Children's Acquisition of Adjective-Noun Order

2006· article· en· W2621926793 on OpenAlexaff
Elena Nicoladis, Mijke Rhemtulla

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjectiveVerbWord orderLinguisticsNounPsychologyMeaning (existential)Order (exchange)Language acquisitionArgument (complex analysis)Noun phraseArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Usage-Based theoreticians have argued that children make the biggest strides in learning to use many adult-like grammatical rules in the preschool years.This argument is based on how children use novel verbs in verb clauses: many Englishspeaking 2-year olds are willing to use novel verbs in ungrammatical order; by 4, few children are willing to use novel verbs in a non-SVO order.In verb clauses, the word order determines the semantic/syntactic role (e.g., subject).By focusing on verbs, researchers have failed to take into account that children might also be learning how meaning and semantic/syntactic function are related.To test this interpretation, we taught novel adjectives to 35 monolingual English-speaking children between 2 and 4 years old, either in a prenominal or postnominal position.Results showed that, while children were more likely to reverse the order of novel postnominal adjectives, even 4-year olds used the new adjectives in the order they were modeled more than half the time.These results suggest that during the preschool years, children are learning to map word order onto semantic/syntactic function.

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)0.009
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207