Reading Rate in L1 Mandarin Chinese and L2 English Across Five Reading Tasks
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 compared first and second language (L1/L2) reading rate and task performance on five tasks (scanning, skimming, normal reading, learning, memorizing) in two groups of Mandarin speakers (Canada group, China group). A repeated measures ANOVA design was used with one between‐subject factor (Group), two within‐subject factors (Language, Task), and L2 proficiency as a covariate. The results indicated substantial L1/L2 rate gaps for all tasks, but, for the most part, this gap was not the same across tasks. Comparing L1 and L2 task performance, the results indicated some decrease in L2 scores on three tasks (scanning, skimming, memorizing). Regarding group differences, the China group had faster reading rates on two L2 tasks (scanning, skimming) and on all L1 tasks; the Canada group scored higher on the memorizing task, a written recall. L2 proficiency was not a predictor of L2 reading rate but was a predictor of L2 performance on two tasks (learning, memorizing).
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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