The Effects of Sentence Writing on Second Language French and Korean Lexical Retention
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 study investigates the effects of sentence writing (SW) on second language (L2) lexical retention by comparing two word-learning conditions: writing new words in sentences and repeated word-picture viewing. L2 learners of French and Korean attempted to learn 24 new words: 12 words with one condition and 12 words with another condition. Dependent measures were one immediate and two delayed posttests that required participants to produce target word forms. Results for both language groups revealed negative effects for SW, suggesting that SW can impede word-form learning during the initial stages of L2 vocabulary learning. Furthermore, the finding that the Korean learners' scores were much lower than the French learners' scores under the SW condition suggests that SW may result in even less retention when the L2 script is far more distant from one's first language (L1), thereby supporting the impact of L1–L2 orthographic distance on L2 word learning and retention.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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