Reformulation and the Learning of French Pronominal Verbs in a Canadian French Immersion Context
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
In this article, we examine a subset of collaborative dialogues that occurred in a multistage task where 8 Canadian grade 7 French immersion students worked together in pairs. Each pair wrote a story, noticed differences between their text and a reformulator's revision of that text, and reflected on their noticing. We analyze the transcripts of their talk in these 3 task sessions, identifying and describing the language‐related episodes. We trace the development of the target language (French), with specific reference to pronominal verbs, from the learners' first collaborative draft to their posttests. The study explores task differences and differences between lower‐ and higher‐proficiency dyads. The language‐related episodes selected for close analysis, along with the posttest data, provide evidence that in most cases, learners have progressed in their correct use of pronominal verbs in French.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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