Acquisition of Literacy in Bilingual Children: A Framework for Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much research that contributes to understanding how bilingual children become literate cannot isolate the contribution of bilingualism itself to the discussion of literacy acquisition for these children. This paper identifies three areas of research relevant to examining literacy acquisition in bilinguals, explains the contribution of each, and associates each with a skill required by monolingual children in becoming literate. A review of the literature explores differences between bilingual and monolingual children in the development of literacy acquisition skills. The relation between bilingualism and the development of each of the three skills is different, sometimes indicating an advantage and sometimes a disadvantage for bilingual children. Bilingualism clearly affects children’s development of literacy, but its effect is neither simple nor unitary.
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 | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".