MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118419473 · doi:10.1017/s0261444815000051

Learning vocabulary through meaning-focused input: Replication of Elley (1989) and Liu & Nation (1985)

2015· article· en· W2118419473 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Teaching · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocabularyMeaning (existential)Active listeningReading (process)Context (archaeology)LinguisticsPsychologyVocabulary learningLanguage acquisitionMathematics educationCommunicationHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a great deal of research on first language (L1) and second language (L2) learning through meaning-focused input since Nagy, Herman & Anderson's (1985) seminal study of incidental vocabulary learning through reading. Two strands of research within this area are incidental vocabulary learning through listening and guessing from context. This article discusses widely-cited studies from each of these areas – Elley (1989) and Liu & Nation (1985) – that deserve to be replicated. Both studies made important contributions to the field, were original in their designs, and advanced our understanding of how vocabulary is learned in context. The benefits of replicating these two studies are described and several suggestions are made for how the replications might be completed.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.295 · 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