MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181794736 · doi:10.3138/cmlr.66.3.465

Book and Software Reviews / Critiques de livres et de logiciels

2010· article· fr· W2181794736 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This excellent book presents an account of second language fluency from multiple perspectives, with a clear focus on cognitive science. Chapter 1 charts the territory. After definitional concerns, broad theoretical viewpoints are presented, such as Levelt’s model of first language speaking and dynamic systems theory. Chapter 2 provides a review of much recent second language research on fluency, with a focus on measurement issues. Chapter 3 reviews general cognitive fluency, exploring areas such as fluency heuristics, transfer-appropriate processing, and processing flexibility. Chapter 4 then explores cognitive aspects of second language fluency. There is a discussion of automaticity and its different underpinnings (ballistic vs. speeded-up processing). The focus is on attentional factors and the use of the Coefficient of Variation as a measure of processing stability. Chapter 5 is concerned with social, attitudinal, and motivation factors. Segalowitz wants to highlight the ways in which language is embedded in social context and their impact on fluency and the attitudes that second language (L2) speakers have toward fluency.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.016

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantesSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207