MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735290982 · doi:10.66887/jltl.v6i1.17

The effect of training on vocabulary strategy use: Explicit teaching of word family, word network and word card strategies

2019· article· en· W2735290982 on OpenAlexaff
Constance Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Language Teaching and Learning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWord (group theory)VocabularyControl (management)Vocabulary developmentComputer scienceTraining (meteorology)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study measured the impact of explicit teaching of three lexical strategies on the extent to which these strategies were used when faced with unknown words. Seven elementary school teachers from different Innu communities implemented three vocabulary strategies (word family, word network and word card) for a period of three weeks. To assess the impact of strategy training, the students in the experimental (N = 39) and control groups (N = 15) performed tasks using the targeted strategies. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups, with the experimental group using more efficiently the strategies taught. These results confirmed the positive impact that explicit teaching of vocabulary strategies and it describes the progress made by the students regarding strategic use.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Language Teaching and LearningSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207