Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bilingual experiences are complex and dynamic The complexity reflects the rich language experiences an individual accumulates over a lifetime, and the dynamicity represents how the complexity changes across different language interaction contexts. Essential to understanding the cognitive and linguistic consequences of bilingual experience, the experience of bilingualism ought to be documented. Currently, we know that bilingualism can be captured in multiple dimensions, such as onset age of second language (L2) exposure (see Birdsong, 2018 for a recent review), language dominance (Unsworth, Chondrogianni & Skarabela, 2018), first and second language proficiency (Prez, Hansen & Bajo, 2019), or the learning context in which L2 acquisition occurs Researchers in the field use different tools to document language experiences, providing quantity and quality of language acquisition history, daily usage, or home exposure through multiple languages for children and adults. Given the interdisciplinary nature of bilingualism research, if these tools are published at all, they are dispersed across different journals and as appendices of articles. The main purpose of this mini-series is to collect these tools for researchers to choose and adapt.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".