MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Systems Framework of Bilingual Language Acquisition: How Development, Experience, and Contexts Interact to Shape Outcomes

2025· article· en· W4413751963 on OpenAlexaff
Krista Byers‐Heinlein, Ruth Kircher, Casey Lew‐Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Developmental Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCategorization, perception, and language
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLinguisticsComputer scienceCognitive psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Millions of children grow up learning multiple languages, yet their outcomes vary dramatically: Some have high proficiency across languages while others have more limited abilities in some languages. This review presents a systems framework for understanding diverse trajectories in bilingual language acquisition. Drawing on systems theories, we examine how multiple levels of influence interact, from individual factors, such as maturational processes that lay the foundation, to immediate language experiences with family and educational contexts that provide learning opportunities. These experiences unfold both dynamically over time and within broader societal contexts that determine language status and community support. The framework reveals how successful bilingual development depends on alignment across system levels: Children, equipped with powerful learning abilities, must meet rich and sustained language experiences, as well as supportive social conditions. This approach illuminates systematic patterns in bilingual development and emphasizes coordinated, multilevel approaches for supporting bilingual development.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Developmental PsychologySame topicCategorization, perception, and languageFrench-language works237,207