Nature of L2 Grammatical Proficiency: A Multi-Dimensional Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a study with descriptive hypothesis-testing design investigating the true nature of L2 grammatical proficiency by focusing on its component parts. It examines the performance of 60 female EFL learners between 19 and 30 years of age at 2 levels of proficiency using 2 types of computerized Grammaticality Judgement tasks in different orders (i.e. Written Stimulus GJ task and Oral Stimulus GJ task) for each participant at a 1 week interval for 2 weeks per each task to determine the extent to which L2 learners' performance is affected by a few components of grammatical proficiency chosen and manipulated out of a great many that exist (i.e. written-oral dichotomy [viz. modality]) as well as language proficiency while focusing on Subjacency. Participants rendered GJ tasks on a 2-point interval. Results from analyzing the elicited measurement data indicated that the performance scores of the two proficiency groups in the two Grammaticality Judgement tasks did not differ significantly.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".