MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6887768217 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/qrz4p

Early Lexical Comprehension: Children's Assumptions about the Grammatical Class of First Words

2023· other· en· W6887768217 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComprehensionWord (group theory)Class (philosophy)Lexical itemPart of speechGrammatical category

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By the age of 6 months, infants have demonstrated lexical understanding of individual-scope words (like the word “mommy,” which refers to a single individual) and category-scope words (like the word “hand,” which encompasses all hands) (Campbell & Hall, 2022). However, previous studies have focused on monolingual infants, who receive equal amounts of input for both categories in a single language. The present study aims to replicate and extend previous findings by Campbell and Hall (2022) by investigating whether six-month-old monolingual and bilingual infants acquire word categories through conceptual readiness, or if lexical knowledge is determined by linguistic input. As bilingual infants receive unequal amounts of input for category-scope words (such as “hand” in English, and “mano” in Spanish), but experience consistent input for individual-scope words (such as the moniker “mommy”), the study compares monolingual and bilingual infants to assess the nature of word category comprehension. If comprehension is driven by conceptual readiness, bilingual infants should show comprehension of both individual and category-scope words. Using live audio to repeat the words “hand” and the participant’s most frequent moniker for mother (eg. mommy, mama, mom, etc.), infants are shown two side-by-side photos while their looking time is measured. In the category-scope block, a photo of the infant’s hand is shown compared to another six-month infant’s hand, while repeating the word “hand.” In the individual-scope block, the infant is shown a picture of their mother next to an unfamiliar woman of approximately the same age and ethnicity, while repeating the infant’s most frequently used moniker for mother. The current study is one of the first to investigate infants’ object word extensions within linguistically and racially diverse backgrounds, which will further our understanding of the impact of how differing language experiences contribute to the development of lexical comprehension.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207