MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Language Loss and Language Learning in Internationally Adopted Children

2019· reference-entry· en· W2974974197 on OpenAlexaff
Lara J. Pierce, Fred Genesee, Denise Klein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre for Research on Brain Language and MusicMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttritionPsychologyLanguage acquisitionNeuroimagingOn LanguageDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyLinguisticsMedicineMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internationally adopted (IA) children begin acquiring one language from birth (L1), but typically discontinue it in favour of their adoption language (L2). Language attrition occurs quickly with IA children unable to speak/understand their L1 within months of adoption. However, as adults IA test participants show certain advantages in this language compared to monolingual speakers never exposed to it, suggesting that certain elements of the L1 may be retained. Neuroimaging studies have found that IA participants exhibit brain activation patterns reflecting the retention of L1 representations and their influence on L2 processing. This chapter reviews research on L1 attrition in IA children, discussing whether/how elements of the L1 may be retained. It discusses how L1 attrition versus retention might influence subsequent language processing in the L1 and L2. Implications of language attrition versus retention patterns observed in IA participants for neuroplasticity and language acquisition are also discussed beyond this specific group.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207