Three factors in vocabulary acquisition in a university French immersion adjunct 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
This study investigates the role of teaching, context, and repetition in the acquisition of specialized vocabulary. It involves thirteen students enrolled in a French immersion class linked to a French adjunct language course at the University of Ottawa, Canada. Based on Webb’s (2008) classification, the researchers have examined and rated the contexts in which students were exposed to a sample of thirty words in their immersion course (lectures and readings). Of these, some (n = 22) were taught explicitly over the semester and others (n = 8) were not taught, as they were words students encountered incidentally in their readings or lectures. Results in this study showed that: a) incidental exposure did not lead to vocabulary acquisition regardless of clarity of context and number of exposures, and b) explicit teaching led to differential learning outcomes not fully explained by clarity of context or number of exposures. The study concludes with a discussion of other factors affecting vocabulary learning in the immersion adjunct context.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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