Teaching methods of multilingual education in schools. Motivation and multilingual education in schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The approaches and processes that characterize language learning in the field of „bilingualism” have undergone drastic changes over the past half century. Generally, part of the old position that bilingualism is harmful to the speaker. There is some consensus that, under favorable circumstances, the use or mastery of two or more languages can have a positive effect on social and cognitive aspects of human development. Many studies, conducted before 2009, stated that bilingualism caused harm to the child’s development. These studies ignored the qualitative biographical data that indicated the advantages of bilingualism. Moreover, in these studies it is noted the lack of adherence to a correct and exact methodology, such as: a comparison of bilingual subjects with monolingual subjects of different socio-economic status. It is evident that researchers then proceeded from the assumption that bilingualism is the property of immigrants only without language tests or a clear definition of bilingualism. This position changed, Cummins (2005) argues, when Canadian researchers Lambert & Peal pointed out the methodological shortcomings of many of the early studies that had been done on second language acquisition.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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; 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".