MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140292502 · doi:10.1111/lang.12129

Validating an Elicited Imitation Task as a Measure of Implicit Knowledge: Comparisons With Other Validation Studies

2015· article· en· W2140292502 on OpenAlexafffund
Nina Spada, Julie Li‐Ju Shiu, Yasuyo Tomita

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Learning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyConstruct (python library)ImitationTask (project management)Construct validityCognitive psychologyImplicit knowledgeMeasure (data warehouse)LinguisticsSocial psychologyPsychometricsCognitive scienceDevelopmental psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study builds on research investigating the construct validity of elicited imitation (EI) as a measure of implicit second language (L2) grammatical knowledge. It differs from previous studies in that the EI task focuses on a single grammatical feature and time on task is strictly controlled. Seventy‐three EFL learners and 20 native English speakers completed the EI and four other tests hypothesized as measures of implicit or explicit L2 knowledge. Factor analytic results indicated that learners’ EI scores loaded on the factor labeled implicit L2 knowledge, confirming previous findings. Results from other tests and methodological issues concerning EI design and use suggest that the construct validation of EI as a measure of implicit L2 grammatical knowledge awaits further investigation.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.155
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.155
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations93
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage LearningSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207