Lexical Aspects of Very Advanced L2 French
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: The present study investigates the possibilities for adult learners to attain nativelikeness in the domain of lexis. Aspects investigated are general lexical knowledge (C-test), receptive deep knowledge, productive collocation knowledge, and productive lexico-pragmatic knowledge in a group of long-residency Swedish French second language (L2) users in France and a matched native control group. The analysis includes correlations between these different vocabulary aspects as well as their relation to the length of residence in the target-language (TL) community. The study reveals that it is possible for L2 learners to attain nativelikeness in general lexical knowledge and lexico-pragmatic knowledge, whereas deep knowledge and collocations are especially difficult for L2 learners, supporting earlier research findings. Furthermore, a strong correlation is found between general lexical knowledge and collocations, but surprisingly not between any of the other aspects, or between vocabulary aspects and length of residence. The results are discussed in light of individual differences in research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.040 | 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 it