The English disease in Finnish compound processing: Backward transfer effects in Finnish–English bilinguals
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 Most English compounds are spaced compounds, whereas spelling regulations prescribe Finnish compounds to be written in a concatenated format. However, as in English, Finnish compounds are commonly spaced nowadays (e.g., piha juhla ‘garden party’), a phenomenon that we labeled the ‘English disease’. In this eye movement study with Finnish–English bilinguals we investigate whether the reading of a concatenated or illegally spaced Finnish compound is affected by the spelling of an English translation equivalent (ETE). We found that spaced Finnish compounds were read slower than their concatenated counterparts, but this effect was attenuated when ETEs were thought to be spaced. Similarly, concatenated Finnish compounds were read faster when their ETEs were also concatenated. These backward transfer effects are in line with studies that show that processing behavior in L1 is affected by a strong concurrent L2, even when the L1 is the native language as well as the dominant community language.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it