MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124745897 · doi:10.5539/ies.v5n1p208

Vocabulary Memorizing Strategies by Chinese University Students

2012· article· en· W2124745897 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Weidong Yang, Dai Wei-ping

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMnemonicMemorizationRepetition (rhetorical device)Rote learningVocabularyPsychologyVocabulary developmentMathematics educationTeaching methodLinguisticsCognitive psychologyCooperative learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The findings of the study indicate that students prefer to engage in the vocabulary learning strategies that would be most appealing to them and that would entail less manipulation of the language. Of the four vocabulary memorizing strategies cited in the study (rote repetition, structural associations, semantic strategies, and mnemonic keyword techniques), students apparently tended to favor the second and the third ones, though rote repetition remains appealing to some of them. Mnemonic devices such as keyword method were rather unpopular to most of the students because they would involve the learners in more active performance of the target language.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207