Bibliographic record
Abstract
Titone and Tiv's Systems Theory of Bilingualism aims to “urge cognitive scientists and neuroscientists to better embrace sociolinguistic and sociocultural experiences as part of their theoretical and empirical purview”. No stronger case for such a framework can be found than in studies of developmental aspects of bilingualism. In fact, inclusion of sociocultural variation has been a common feature of many studies of dual language learning for some time, especially in studies of pre-school and early-school-age learners (see Genesee, 2019, for a review). Young dual language learners – neonates, infants and toddlers, exposed to more than one language – begin life as virtual tabula rasa and are capable of learning any language with facility. As a result, their language acquisition is necessarily tied to the sociocultural parameters of the learning environments they are exposed to. Moreover, as Titone and Tiv emphasize, the immediate and ultimate purpose of language learning is communication. Thus, young dual language learners must be attuned to and acquire the sociocultural constraints and norms for communicating effectively in more than one language. While sociocultural variation is important for understanding language acquisition even among monolingual children living in relatively homogeneous monocultural environments, sociocultural variation is inherent and, indeed, enhanced in the learning environments of children acquiring more than one language insofar as each language is intimately linked with different socio-cultural parameters. Sociocultural variation can be important for understanding bilingualism in yet another way. In studies of the neuro-cognitive consequences of bilingualism, it has been reported that there is a more pronounced association between dual language exposure and activation of certain brain areas among adolescent bilinguals from relatively low SES backgrounds than bilinguals from relatively high SES backgrounds (Brito & Noble, 2018). Inclusion of sociocultural variation in research on the effects of bilingualism can reveal a more nuanced view than emerges if such variation is not considered.
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) | 0.003 | 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 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".