Gender differences in second language motivation : An investigation of micro- and macro-level influences
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 The present article is part of a large-scale study conducted in Ontario that investigated gender differences in motivation to learn French. However, for this particular article second language (L2) motivation theory is the primary focus. Over the past 30 years of research, the study of L2 motivation has evolved. There appears to be a definite shift away from the societal (macro-level) approaches that dominated the research of the 1970s and 1980s toward an approach that emphasizes the influence of the L2 classroom. The researcher calls into question this evolution in research. A mixed methodology was used to determine if gender differences in a variety of motivational factors exist among Grade 9 French as a second language (FSL) students. Approximately 500 students in Grade 9 completed a questionnaire. The significant findings of the questionnaire were then explored in interviews with students and teachers. Quantitative results indicated significant differences in regard to several motivational factors. However, the qualitative data emphasized that at the root of these differences were societal influences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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