MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2483228464 · doi:10.1075/lllt.30.12seg

Chapter 7. The L2 semantic attentional blink

2011· book-chapter· en· W2483228464 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage learning and language teaching · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of AlbertaConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttentional blinkPsychologyCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Second language (L2) users are typically less proficient in their L2 than in their first language. One explanation may be that the L2 requires more attentional capacity. To test this, English speakers of L2 French performed a semantic attentional blink (AB) task, in both languages. A significant AB effect was obtained in each language; however, the effect was smaller in the L2, indicating that the attention burden associated with the AB task was paradoxically lower in the L2. Also, the magnitude of the AB effect correlated positively with a measure of L2 lexical access efficiency. Results are discussed in terms of attention-based and automatic processing in L2 lexical access and in terms of their implications for L2 learning and teaching.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1570.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.273 · 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