MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293809643 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v12n6p1

Effects of English Proficiency on Caucasian Face Gender Perception by Chinese-English Bilinguals: Evidence from ERP

2022· article· en· W4293809643 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xinan Zhou, Yifei Ji

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Studies in Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerceptionPronounLinguisticsLanguage proficiencyGermanic languagesNeuroscience of multilingualismFace (sociological concept)Linguistic relativityCognitive psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chinese and English differ in the encoding of biological gender in the spoken forms of 3rd person singular pronouns. Linguistic relativity theories predict that structural differences across languages are accompanied with differences in non-linguistic cognition. However, the pronoun difference between the two languages seems so trivial that its influence on gender perception is unbelievable except with empirical support. The present study conducted an ERP experiment with native speakers of Chinese learning English as a foreign language and differing in English proficiency. The odd-ball paradigm was used to examine whether L2 proficiency would influence how these Chinese-English bilinguals perform on Caucasian face gender perception. The experiment yielded null effect of L2 proficiency on the vMMN that was elicited for the gender category, as well as the control age category. The results suggest that the difference in the pronoun encoding of biological gender between Chinese and English may not influence gender perception in the nonlinguistic context, although it is not surprising considering the triviality of such cross-linguistic difference and the widespread gender binary opposition in daily life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicGender Studies in LanguageFrench-language works237,207