MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128024292 · doi:10.55393/babylonia.v3i.369

What is the best age to start learning an additional language?

2018· article· W7128024292 on OpenAlex
David Singleton

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBabylonia Journal of Language Education · 2018
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Language Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResearch methodologyStatistical analysisContext (archaeology)Literacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Si vous demandez à des passants quel est le meilleur âge pour apprendre une langue étrangère, la majorité d’entre eux répondront certainement «le plus tôt est le mieux». Cet article montre pourtant que la réponse à cette question est plus complexe. S’il est vrai que, en contexte de migration, les apprenants précoces tendent à atteindre un meilleur niveau sur le long terme que leurs pairs plus âgés, de nombreux exemples montrent que des apprenants tardifs peuvent aussi passer pour natifs de la L2. En ce qui concerne le contexte scolaire, les résultats clairs et consistants de plus de 50 ans de recherche montrent qu’un apprentissage précoce ne confère aucun avantage en comparaison d’un apprentissage plus tardif.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.352 · 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