MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1782803365

The influence of lexical aspect on non-target like uses of English progressive verb forms

2015· article· en· W1782803365 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Tiittanen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsSeneca Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerbTamilLinguisticsTask (project management)Mandarin ChinesePsychologyVariety (cybernetics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study sought to determine if lexical aspect would influence the oversuppliance of progressive English verb forms in L2 obligatory contexts for the use of the simple past tense in two oral tasks, namely, a film retell task and an interview questions task. It also sought to determine if the L1 of the ESL learner participants, Mandarin and Tamil, would interact with lexical aspect in the oversuppliance of the progressive verb forms. The results of this study revealed that both L1 groups used primarily activities and accomplishments with the oversupplied progressive verb forms on both tasks. In addition, there appeared to be L1 influence in this oversuppliance as only the Tamil learners had a greater proportion of accomplishments than achievements and a greater proportion of activities than states for the oversupplied progressive forms on both tasks.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0050.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207