MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046587821 · doi:10.3138/cmlr.65.2.195

Pushed Output, Noticing, and Development of Past Tense Morphology in Content-Based Instruction

2008· article· en· W2046587821 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael J. Leeser

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImperfectTask (project management)ComprehensionLinguisticsPast tenseActive listeningPresent tensePsychologyMorphemeListening comprehensionComputer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the effects of learners' production (i.e., pushed output) during a multi-stage reconstruction task on learners' noticing of Spanish past tense morphology, aural text comprehension, and development of preterite/imperfect usage in writing. Participants included 47 intermediate L2 Spanish learners in a content-based course at the university level. One group of learners (+output) listened to a series of passages and engaged in text reconstruction tasks. The other group (−output) listened to the same texts but answered multiple-choice comprehension questions instead of reconstructing the texts. Learners' notes during the listening phase of the tasks served as a noticing measure, and writing tasks were used as pre- and post-treatment measures. Results reveal that the +output group (a) reported more noticing of words overall, but not of past tense forms; (b) comprehended more information from the text; and (c) showed evidence of past tense development in their writing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.170 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantesSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207