Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increasing number of children in the U.S. and around the world are exposed to multiple languages, yet there is considerable variation in individual bilingual outcomes. Previous research has shown that factors such as input, usage, and language history can help explain this variation, but less is known about the role of attitudes towards bilingualism, and no instrument currently exists for measuring such attitudes. Guided by previous theories on language perceptions, we describe two new scales developed to measure general perceptions of the value of bilingualism (study 1: Perceptions of Bilingualism, PoB) and parental perceptions of the value of bilingualism for one’s child (study 2: Perceptions of Bilingualism for child, PoB+) in the United States. We use factor analysis and Item Response Theory (IRT) to test the reliability, dimensionality, and individual item contributions of each scale using a national online sample of 422 adults (study 1) and a subsample of 321 parents (study 2). The final 10 and 8-item scales demonstrate internal reliability, unidimensionality, and precision of the intended construct to be measured. We report associations between scale scores and demographic characteristics and discuss how an IRT approach can complement classical approaches to attitude scale development. The PoB and PoB+ are useful tools to explore the association between social perceptions of bilingualism and language use for oneself and for one’s child.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".