MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409166972 · doi:10.3389/flang.2025.1413119

The acquisition of object clitic pronouns in Heritage Romanian

2025· article· en· W4409166972 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Mihaela Pirvulescu, Virginia Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Language Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCliticRomanianLinguisticsObject (grammar)Object pronounComputer sciencePsychologyGeographyPersonal pronounPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the acquisition of object clitic pronouns in Heritage Romanian (HR) by school-age children in Toronto who are second-generation speakers of Romanian—i.e., children of first-generation immigrant parents. These children have been exposed to Romanian as their first language (L1) since birth within the home, while English has served as the societal language, primarily encountered outside the home. Additionally, they were enrolled in French immersion programs between the ages of 3 and 6. This study looks at both production and comprehension of preverbal object clitic pronouns. The findings demonstrate that HR exhibits similar patterns in the domain of object clitics as those observed in Romanian-dominant trilingual children, particularly regarding clitic omissions at specific developmental stages. Moreover, HR shares characteristics commonly identified in bilingual (heritage) language acquisition, such as gender errors. Overall, this study provides further evidence that both language use and literacy play a crucial role in shaping heritage language proficiency.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Language SciencesSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207