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
The cognitive and linguistic processes involved in the acquisition and use of two languages are systematically different from those processes engaged in monolingual language use, leading to detectable changes in language and cognitive outcomes for bilinguals. The present article describes these differences and offers speculation on possible mechanisms. Measures of linguistic proficiency and processing are often poorer in bilinguals than in monolinguals: bilingual children have a smaller vocabulary in each language than comparable monolingual children in that language and bilingual adults take longer to retrieve specific words than monolinguals. In contrast, measures of nonverbal executive control, including the ability to selectively attend to relevant information, inhibit distraction, and shift between tasks is generally better in bilinguals than in monolinguals. These two types of outcomes are illustrated and explained through behavioral and neuroimaging evidence. The implications of these effects of bilingualism on cognitive and linguistic processing are considered in terms of both their clinical and theoretical consequences. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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