Explicit and Implicit Learning: Exploring Their Simultaneity and Immediate Effectiveness
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
Do adults learn the same syntactic second language (L2) form explicitly and implicitly simultaneously during meaning-based exposure, and does the type of learning (explicit and/or implicit) affect subsequent performance. In this study, 81 anglophones completed comprehension tasks providing incidental exposure to a semi-artificial language (English lexis, German syntax). A surprise grammaticality-judgement test (GJT) measured performance with the novel syntax. Source attributions and verbal reports provided information on type of learning (implicit and/or explicit), which were analysed in an exploratory fashion to classify within-participant implicit and explicit learning. Sixty-three participants demonstrated both types of learning, which suggests that extant binary classifications of type of learning may be inadequate. Furthermore, there were no significant performance differences on the GJT based on type of learning despite poor performance overall. The interpretation of the findings considers within-participant explicit and implicit learning measures and research issues when comparing the effectiveness of initial explicit learning and implicit learning on immediate performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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