Bibliographic record
Abstract
06–194Altarriba, Jeanette & Jennifer L. Gianico (U Albany, State U New York, USA), Lexical ambiguity resolution across languages: A theoretical and empirical review. Experimental Psychology (Hogrefe & Huber Publishers) 50.3 (2003), 159–170. 06–195Bialystok, Ellen (York U, Canada; ellenb@yorku.ca ) & Dana Shapero, Ambiguous benefits: The effect of bilingualism on reversing ambiguous figures. Developmental Science (Blackwell) 8.6 (2005), 595. 06–196Blot, J. Kevin (Clark U & Boston College, USA), Michael A. Zaraté & Paul B. Paulus, Code-switching across brainstorming sessions: Implications for the revised hierarchical model of bilingual language processing. Experimental Psychology (Hogrefe & Huber Publishers) 50.3 (2003), 171–183. 06–197Costa, Albert (U Barcelona, Spain; acosta@ub.edu ), Mikel Santesteban & Agnès Caño, On the facilitatory effects of cognate words in bilingual speech production. Brain and Language (Elsevier) 94.1 (2005), 94–103. 06–198De Diego Balaguer, R. (Faculté de Médecine, Paris XII, France), N. Sebastián-Gallés, B. Díaz & A. Rodríguez-Fornells, Morphological processing in early bilinguals: An ERP study of regular and irregular verb processing. Cognitive Brain Research (Elsevier) 25.1 (2005), 312–327. 06–199Elston-Güttler, Kerrie E. (Max Planck Institute of Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany; km.guettler@t.online.de ) & Angela D. Friederici, Native and L2 processing of homonyms in sentential context. Journal of Memory and Language (Elsevier) 52.2 (2005), 256–283. 06–200Luka, Barbara J. (Bard College, USA; Luka@bard.edu ) & Lawrence W. Barsalou, Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language (Elsevier) 52.3 (2005), 436–459. 06–201McLaughlin, Judith (U Washington, USA; giuditta@u.washington.edu ), Lee Osterhout & Albert Kim, Neural correlates of second- language word learning: Minimal instruction produces rapid change. Nature Neuroscience (Nature Publishing Group) 7 (2004), 703–704. 06–202Mechelli, Andrea (Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, U London, UK; a.mechelli@fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk ), Jenny T. Crinion, Uta Noppeney, John O'Doherty, John Ashburner, Richard S. Frackowiak & Cathy J. Price, Neurolinguistics: Structural plasticity in the bilingual brain. Nature (Nature Publishing Group) 431.757 (2004), 256–283. 06–203Meijer, Paul J. A. (Clark U & Boston College, USA) & Jean E. Fox Tree, Building syntactic structures in speaking: A bilingual exploration. Experimental Psychology (Hogrefe & Huber Publishers) 50.3 (2003), 184–195. 06–204Moreno, Eva M. (U Califonia, USA; kutas@cogsci.ucsd.edu ) & Marta Kutas, Processing semantic anomalies in two languages: An electrophysiological exploration in both languages of Spanish–English bilinguals. Cognitive Brain Research (Elsevier) 22.2 (2005), 205–220. 06–205Pallier, C. (Service Hospitalier Fredrik Joliot, Orsay, France; pallier@lscp.ehess.fr ), S. Dehaene, J.-B. Poline, D. Lebihan, A.-M. Argenti, E. Dupoux & J. Mehler, Brain imaging of language plasticity in adopted adults: Can a second language replace the first?Cerebral Cortex (Oxford University Press) 13.2 (2003), 155–161. 06–206Reiterer, Susanne (U Vienna, Austria; Susanne.Reiterer@med.uni-tuebingen.de ), Claudia Hemmelmann, Peter Rappelsberger & Michael L. Berger, Characteristic functional networks in high- versus low-proficiency second-language speakers detected also during native language processing: An explorative EEG coherence study in 6 frequency bands. Cognitive Brain Research (Elsevier) 25.2 (2005), 566–578. 06–207Tham, Wendy W. P. (Nanyang Technological U, Singapore), Susan J. Rickard Liow, Jagath C. Rajapakse, Tan Choong Leong, Samuel E. S. Ng, Winston E. H. Lim & Lynn G. Homoreno, Phonological processing in Chinese–English bilingual biscriptals: An fMRI study. Neuroimage (Elsevier) 28.3 (2005), 579–587.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.332 | 0.261 |
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".