MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2274547879 · doi:10.1017/s014271641500051x

Cognitive, linguistic, and contextual factors in Norwegian second language learner's narrative production

2015· article· en· W2274547879 on OpenAlexaff
Jannicke Karlsen, Esther Geva, Solveig‐Alma Halaas Lyster

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Psycholinguistics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNarrativeLinguisticsVocabularyNorwegianCognitionGrammarLanguage acquisitionFirst languageMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The present study investigated the contribution of cognitive, linguistic, and contextual factors to the narrative production of Norwegian second language learners. We assessed cognitive ability and first and second language proficiency in 66 kindergarten children with Urdu/Punjabi as their first language. Number of children's books in the home and time spent in kindergarten were treated as contextual factors. Oral narration was assessed in Grade 1. A series of fixed-order hierarchical regression analyses displayed a complex relationship among cognitive, linguistic, and contextual factors and various facets of narrative production of young second language learners; nonverbal ability and books in the home predicted the mastering of story (macro)structure, while linguistic (vocabulary and grammar) and both contextual variables predicted microaspects of narrative proficiency. The results suggest that combining home book reading practices, kindergarten attendance, and second language interventions might improve language minority children's narrative production and chances of school success.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied PsycholinguisticsSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207