Does pointing predict bilingual children’s vocabulary?
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
Previous studies have shown that children’s and parents’ pointing predicts monolingual children’s vocabulary, both concurrently and longitudinally. In this study, we predicted that children’s and parents’ pointing would positively predict bilingual children’s vocabulary growth in both languages. However, the strength of that link could differ depending on the child’s dominance, as parents often play a more didactic role when interacting in children’s non-dominant language. Children’s pointing might be a stronger predictor of their dominant language vocabulary. Parents’ pointing might be a stronger predictor of their non-dominant language vocabulary. Participants were 35 French-English bilingual children observed in free play situations, one in each language, at 30 months. Their vocabulary scores were collected at 30, 37, 49, and 63 months. As expected, children’s pointing predicted growth in dominant language vocabulary and parents’ pointing growth in children’s non-dominant language vocabulary. We discuss how parents’ interactional roles mediate how pointing relates to vocabulary growth.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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