Variations in adult use of referring expressions during storytelling in different interactional settings
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 During the language acquisition process children experience language in different interactional settings. In terms of child-directed speech, we argue that children are exposed to different models that vary according to different factors. This chapter aims at grasping some aspects of these models, with a focus on referring expressions. Data consists of narratives in three interactional settings: mother-child interactions (Mother-to-Child context), kindergarten sessions (School context), and adults telling a story to an experimenter (Adult-to-Experimenter context). Children were aged from 3 to 7. We compared the participants’ uses of referring expressions in these three contexts and, in the Mother-to-Child context, mothers interacting with a language impaired child or not. Results show that adults’ uses of nouns and clitic pronouns vary according to the interactional setting, and that the uses of mothers and teachers when interacting with children at home or in school do not correspond to those of adults in an experimental setting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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