Stratégies de lecture en français L1 et en anglais L2 chez des universitaires diplômés : aspects quantitatifs
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
Abstract This paper reports on a study investigating reading strategies used by 16 French-speaking university students, all of whom were good readers. Variables such as linguistic proficiency and reading proficiency were considered in French (L1) and in English (L2). Through introspective verbal reports, two different groups of eight readers expressed their strategies while reading abstracts of expository texts, one in L1 and one in L2. All readers evidenced familiarity with a variety of strategies. Five different categories were considered: global, local, technical, diverse and parallel. Overall, the total number of strategies reported in each group did not differ significantly. However, in L2, under the category of local strategies, we notice a significant difference between the two groups. Some explanations are provided for this difference, including a low level of English proficiency and a lack of automatization of strategies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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