HL Mandarin Speakers Toss the Same Way as Fluent Mandarin Speakers
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
Abstract Heritage language ( HL ) speakers often show weaker semantics in HL words than speakers who continue to learn and use the language. In this study, we tested whether HL Mandarin speakers simplified near-synonyms of throw verbs by diminishing the difference between the near-synonyms and/or by diminishing the difference between the generic throw verb and other near-synonyms. Two participant groups, HL Mandarin speakers and English second-language learners, acted out six Mandarin near-synonyms of throw verbs and the English verb throw . The results showed more similarities than differences between the two groups in the core features of throw verb semantics (force, speed, and direction). We observed few signs of simplification. One interpretation of these results is that early and/or naturalistic exposure to Mandarin was an important predictor of speakers’ knowledge of conceptual features. These results add to the literature showing that there can be factors beyond proficiency that contribute to speakers’ lexical semantics.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it