MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W584551294 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511605963

Bilingualism in Development

2001· book· en· W584551294 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen Bialystok

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2001
Typebook
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscience of multilingualismPsychologyCognitionSet (abstract data type)Language developmentDevelopmental psychologyBilingual educationLiteracyMetalinguistic awarenessCognitive psychologyLinguisticsPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bilingualism in Development is an examination of the language and cognitive development of bilingual children focusing primarily on the preschool years. It begins by defining the territory for what is included in bilingualism and how language proficiency can be conceptualized. Using these constraints, the discussion proceeds to review the research relevant to various aspects of children's development and assesses the role that bilingualism has in each. The areas covered include language acquisition, metalinguistic ability, literacy skill, and problem-solving ability. In each case, the performance of bilingual children is compared to that of similar monolinguals, and differences are interpreted in terms of a theoretical framework for cognitive development and processing. The studies show that bilingualism significantly accelerates children's ability to selectively attend to relevant information and inhibit attention to misleading information or competing responses. This conclusion is used as the basis for examining a set of related issues regarding the education and social circumstances of bilingual children.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2,075
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207