MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415493078 · doi:10.3389/fdpys.2025.1666080

Back to the test: Popper's neglected legacy in bilingual advantage research

2025· article· en· W4415493078 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Bruce Morton

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Developmental Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFalsifiabilityField (mathematics)Control (management)Connection (principal bundle)Key (lock)Action (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive developmental science has made unprecedented progress in the last 50 years but has also seen many seminal findings fail to replicate. Adopting the bilingual advantage in children's attention control as a case study, we draw a connection between the replication crisis playing out in selected quarters of our field and a wavering commitment to the principles of classical hypothesis testing. Moving forward, we suggest open-science practices as a way of ensuring scientific hypotheses remain falsifiable and unconfirmed.

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)0.085
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.133
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0850.133
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.063
Scholarly communication0.0100.030
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0060.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.360 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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 Developmental PsychologySame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207