The linguistic and metalinguistic abilities of monolingual and bilingual speakers with Prader–Willi syndrome
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although bilingualism is encouraged and promoted among typically developing (TD) individuals, some countries continue to recommend monolingualism for non-TD individuals. This common practice seems unfounded because existing research investigating the effects of bilingualism on non-TD individuals has not revealed a detrimental effect of bilingualism. In this study, we analyzed the linguistic and metalinguistic abilities of individuals with Prader–Willi syndrome (PWS). To manipulate grammaticality and semantics, a grammaticality judgment task was created and administered in Spanish to eight Spanish monolingual speakers and seven Spanish–Catalan bilingual speakers, all with PWS. Similar results were obtained for linguistic and metalinguistic abilities in both groups, even if the bilingual speakers were Catalan dominant. Thus, these results not only support previous research within the field in not identifying a negative effect of bilingualism but also emphasize the fact that bilingual speakers can mirror monolingual speakers even in their “weaker” language.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it