Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of L1 transfer on the acquisition of L2 has always been the subject of controversary in the field of L2 learning and bilingual education. This article intends to examine controversial views about the transfer of L1 on the acquisition of L2 from the theories of Contrastive Analysis (CA), Contrastive Rhetoric (CR) and Creative Construction (CC) and Constructive Underlying Proficiency (CUP), hopefully offering an extensive analysis of the L1 transfer. Keywords: Contrastive Analysis; Contrastive Rhetoric; Creative Construction; Constructive Underlying Proficiency Resume: Le role du transfert de la L1 dans l'acquisition de la L2 a toujours fait l'objet de controverses dans le domaine de l'apprentissage d'une deuxieme langue et de l'enseignement bilingue. Cet article vise a examiner les vues controversees au sujet du transfert de la L1 dans l'acquisition de L2 a partir des theories de l'analyse contrastive (CA), de la rhetorique contrastive (CR), de la construction creative (CC) et de la competence constructive sous-jacente (CUP), en esperant offrir une vaste analyse sur le transfert de la L1.Mots-cles: analyse contrastive; rhetorique contrastive; construction creative; competence constructive sous-jacente
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".