The effects of reading bilingual books on vocabulary learning
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
This study investigated the effects of reading bilingual books on vocabulary learning. Eighty-two Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners read different versions of the same text: English-only text, English text with target words glossed, English text followed by the Chinese text, and Chinese text followed by the English text. A pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest were used to measure incidental vocabulary learning. The findings showed that (a) all four groups made significant gains in lexical knowledge, (b) those who read glossed text and bilingual text had significantly durable knowledge gain, (c) the participants who read glossed text or read the English version of the text before the Chinese version had significantly higher scores text in the immediate posttest than the participants who read the English-only text, and (d) the participants who read bilingual texts had significantly higher scores on the delayed posttest than those who read the English-only text.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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