MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1527976431

A Study of Vocabulary Knowledge and Reading Comprehension on EFL Chinese Learners

2015· article· en· W1527976431 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocabularyConstruct (python library)Reading (process)Dimension (graph theory)Reading comprehensionComprehensionPsychologyLinguisticsComputer scienceMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vocabulary knowledge is an important aspect of second language (L2) vocabulary acquisition, and it is widely accepted as a fundamental component of L2 proficiency. A clear tendency in the field of L2 vocabulary acquisition study is that vocabulary knowledge is no longer viewed as a one-dimensional construct rather than as a multi-dimension alone. Many various but complementary vocabulary knowledge frameworks have been proposed, in which breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge occupy a primary and central position. Based on a number of previous researches and studies, in this passage, the author designed a series of tests to some Chinese university students to investigate the correlational relationship among vocabulary breadth, depth and reading comprehension. The major research findings of the study indicate that there exists a moderate, positive correlation relationship among vocabulary breadth, vocabulary depth and reading 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.359 · 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