MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150980171 · doi:10.5539/elt.v2n1p173

The Influence of the Intermediary System of Cognition on Vocabulary Acquisition for Chinese English-Majors

2009· article· en· W2150980171 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yanyan Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocabularyCognitionSubject (documents)PsychologyAffect (linguistics)Cognitive psychologyLinguisticsVocabulary developmentCognitive scienceComputer scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the article, the author tries to find out the main factors that affect the subject's vocabulary acquisition by an investigation. It is concluded that vocabulary acquisition models and strategies are something external, what really works upon vocabulary acquisition is the intermediary system of cognition including the knowledge structure and abilities structure of the subject. The richer the intermediary system is, the greater the subject's cognition will be, which will contribute greatly to the subject's vocabulary acquisition. Meanwhile, the components of the knowledge structure and abilities structure are explored, furthermore, it studies how the components as the intermediate means work upon vocabulary acquisition in an interactive manner.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207