Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners
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 examines the preferred vocabulary learning strategies of Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners. In order to identify the aforementioned group in terms of language proficiency, a TOEFL test was administered to a population of 146 undergraduate EFL students at the university of Vali-e-Asr in Rafsanjan, Iran. Those scoring above 480 were arbitrarily labeled as upper-intermediate. Subsequently a questionnaire known as VOLSI (Vocabulary Learning Strategies Inventory) was given to the same subjects to come up with their preferred vocabulary learning strategies. Finally, a stepwise multiple regression analysis revealed that 11.4% of the variance in the learners’ L2 proficiency can be accounted for by three strategy categories involving self-motivation, word organization, and authentic language use .In addition, an independent-samples t-test indicated no significant difference between learners’ gender and their VLS choice.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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