MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087432641 · doi:10.11139/cj.28.3.639-661

Does Word Coach Coach Words?

2011· article· en· W2087432641 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tom Cobb, Marlise Horst

Bibliographic record

VenueCALICO Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWord (group theory)LinguisticsComputer scienceNatural language processingPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reports on the design and testing of an integrated suite of vocabulary training games for Nintendo™ collectively designated My Word Coach (Ubisoft, 2008). The games’ design is based on a wide range of learning research, from classic studies on recycling patterns to frequency studies of modern corpora. Its general usage and learning effects were tested over a four-month period, with fifty age and level appropriate Francophone English as a second language learners in a Montreal school. A battery of observational and empirical tests tracked experimental and quasi-control groups’ lexical development on the dimensions of form recognition, meaning recognition, free production, and speed of lexical access, as well as features of game use. Two months’ gaming coincided with gains in recognition vocabulary normally achieved in one to two years, longer oral productions, reduced code switching, and increased speed of lexical access. Further questions are raised about the prior knowledge Word Coach assumes, the importance of post-game follow up, and the future of commercial gaming in language learning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations58
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCALICO JournalSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207