<i>Le cadeau</i> or <i>la cadeau</i>? The Role of Aptitude in Learner Awareness of Gender Distinctions in French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown differences among learners in terms of their level of awareness of grammatical features in the input. Reasons for these differences have not been widely researched, despite the pedagogical importance of understanding what different learners are noticing. It has been found, however, that learners' grammatical sensitivity and memory may play a role. The present study investigated whether awareness can be predicted by five individual difference measures: attention control, working memory, phonologic memory, grammatical sensitivity, and inductive language learning ability. Forty-six anglophone adults with pre-intermediate French completed a crossword task that provided exposure to two reliable noun endings for attributing gender (cadeau/rondelle). A think-aloud protocol and two probe questions measured awareness. Participants were divided into two groups: aware and no verbal report. A regression analysis showed that only the test of inductive language learning ability could predict assignment to awareness group. Implications for aptitude, awareness, and L2 proficiency research are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".