Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition is devoted to syntactic aspects of bilingual acquisition. For the purposes of this issue, bilingual acquisition is defined as the acquisition of two languages during the period of primary language development, extending from birth onward. Bilingual acquisition can entail the acquisition of more than two languages (see Cenoz and Jessner, 2000) as well as the acquisition of a spoken and signed language (e.g., Richmond-Welty and Siple, 1999) or of two spoken languages; only studies of the simultaneous acquisition of two spoken languages are reported in this volume. An ideal definition of bilingual acquisition would include not only reference to the age of first exposure to two languages, but also reference to the regularity and extent of exposure to each language. While such stipulations are not necessary in defining the context for monolingual acquisition since virtually all children receive sufficient language exposure to fully acquire one language, they are important considerations in cases of bilingual acquisition since some children have insufficient exposure to two languages, either in terms of amount or continuity, to attain full bilingual proficiency.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.035 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".