The Primacy of Bilinguals and Trilinguals College Students’ Views on Reading and Language Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at understanding the essence of reading and language learning by bilinguals and trilinguals college students. The study is based on data from two separate yet related studies that were completed. The study used interviews as a qualitative means to glean the views of Arab bilinguals (n=10) and African trilinguals (n=3). The study is based on symbolic interactionism approach to incorporate a focus on intersubjective realities of bilinguals and trilinguals, openness to bilinguals and multilinguals’ experiences and a search for invariant indispensable meaning in their descriptions of their bilingualism and multilingualism. In a very important sense, this study attempted to get beyond the immediacy of an experienced world in order to articulate the pre-reflective level of lived-world of bilinguals and trilinguals. The preliminary results of this study revealed that both bilinguals and trilinguals viewed reading as an establish tool for gleaning meaning. On the other hand, trilinguals viewed language from a larger intersubjective scope where the shared common understandings through ongoing symbolic interaction with the others. The trilingual also assigned more spatial perspectives, more metalinguistic awareness of reading and languages learning than the 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".