MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399859555 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1444503

Editorial: Reviews in language sciences

2024· editorial· en· W4399859555 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio Benítez‐Burraco, Antonio Bova, Thomas L. Spalding

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2024
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
Topiclinguistics and terminology studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLinguisticsCognitive scienceCognitive psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

resulted in a deeper understanding of what language is and how it is put into use for fulfilling different functions. Accordingly, we have gained a clearer view of language within the infrastructure of human cognition, including how it is processed by the brain, how it is impaired in people with pathological conditions, how it is acquired by the child, or how it evolved in our species, to name a few. Likewise, we have also made substantial progress in understanding the principles that govern human interaction through language, as observed in daily conversations, but also in many other speech events. Additionally, we now have comprehensive descriptions of thousands of language varieties across the world, from languages to sociolects to registers to styles, as well as detailed characterizations of the physical and sociocultural factors that contribute to regulating such linguistic diversity. Overall, this has notably improved our comprehension of the causes of linguistic diversity, and ultimately, the position of language(s) within human behavior. Methodologically, we now use more sophisticated tools and procedures for analyzing language at all levels, which has resulted in richer data about language facts, and ultimately, in more robust theories about language. Finally, we have also made a significant effort for translating all these discoveries to society, which has crystallized in e.g. better speech therapies aimed to help people with language disorders or more accurate language policies intended to regulate language use in complex, multilingual societies.All this progress has transformed language sciences into a dynamic and exciting field of research, but at the same time has made research in language sciences very demanding.Researchers in language sciences face several crucial challenges. First, it is not just that, as noted, the amount of data and evidence about language facts has increased exponentially. At present, a proper study of language is not possible without considering the data and evidence provided also by allied disciplines, like archaeology, history, ethology, genetics, or neuroscience, to name a few. In other words, language sciences have become increasingly multidisciplinary in nature. At the same time, and in part as a consequence of such multidisciplinarity, research in language sciences has become more and more demanding from a methodological perspective, resulting in a true technification in many fields. Consider, for instance, the sophisticated facilities used to examine how the brain processes language, the molecular techniques employed to determine the causes of language disorders with a genetic origin, or the Bayesian methods used to create language phylogenies. This methodological challenge is expected to increase during the next decades. Third, given such an impressive amount of assorted data about language is available, the time may have come to improve our hypotheses about the nature of language, which have been traditionally based on linguistic data (and theory) only. Theorizing better about language will be an additional challenge for the next decades too. Finally, as also noted, researchers in language sciences are more and more concerned about the necessity of transferring to society the results of their research, since there are indeed many problems that can benefit from a better understanding of language facts, from clinical linguistics, to artificial intelligence, to cultural mediation.Overall, because the field is increasingly multidisciplinary, methodologically complex, theoretically diverse, and applicable, and because research in all areas is growing exponentially, it is difficult for researchers to be up to date. Accordingly, reliable, open-source summaries of issues of interest for the field are more needed and more welcome than ever. The aim of this Research Topic is to gather comprehensive and actualized reviews of topics of particular interest within language sciences. We have brought together 6 contributions from 14 scholars.Reflecting current deep interest in second language learning, we have four reviews of specific areas of research on second language learning: Wang on memorization strategies, and, in particular, on the recent move to memorization of longer texts, rather than simply individual words; Dou, Chan, and Win on approaches to teaching second languages, particularly on the recent switch to English for Specific Purposes; Klimova and Seraj on the current role and future promise of chatbots in teaching second languages; and Qiau on the factors that affect second language learners, including motivation, aptitude, personality, intelligence, and learner preferences.In addition, Maggu, Kager, To, Kwan, and Wong present a meta-analytic review of work on the role of complex input in children with speech sound disorders, reflecting the importance of language science in providing clinical insights and treatments.Finally, Wie and Knoeferle review literature on how language relates to events in the world, their causal connections, and their representations, reflecting the deeply related nature of language and cognition.Given our interest in providing good, open-source, scientifically valuable reviews of the most current areas of language research, broadly conceived, we wish to end by drawing attention to another Frontiers in Psychology Research Topic: Reviews in Psychology of Language, which we hope will continue to provide a valuable resource to researchers in the area looking for comprehensive reviews across all areas of research in the psychology of 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topiclinguistics and terminology studiesFrench-language works237,207