MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622900532 · doi:10.1075/bpa.6.06tim

The influence of contextual cues on representations in the mental lexicon for bilinguals

2017· book-chapter· en· W2622900532 on OpenAlexaff
Kalinka Timmer, John G. Grundy, Ellen Bialystok

Bibliographic record

VenueBilingual processing and acquisition · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental lexiconLexiconSalience (neuroscience)PsychologyConcretenessCognitive psychologyMental representationLinguisticsPsycholinguisticsContext (archaeology)Cognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The strength of each representation in the mental lexicon depends on many factors, among which word frequency and conceptual concreteness. For bilinguals, each concept has two lexical representations, and so representational strength also depends on the salience of first- and second-language activation and the dominance of each language. The relative salience of the dominant language is a critical reason for observed asymmetric language switching costs, but the language context can alter this effect. Therefore, context is another important influence on the relative level of activation in the mental lexicon. This factor is often overlooked in the literature. Here we explore the contribution of language context on the salience of representations in the mental lexicon for bilinguals.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBilingual processing and acquisitionSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207