MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767040413 · doi:10.1075/dujal.6.1.05wol

The multilingual experience

2017· article· en· W2767040413 on OpenAlexaff
Nina Woll

Bibliographic record

VenueDutch Journal of Applied Linguistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationMultilingualismGermanDimension (graph theory)PsychologyLinguisticsForeign languageFirst languageLanguage acquisitionDiversity (politics)LiteracyComputer scienceSociologyMathematics educationPedagogyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Of the numerous factors affecting language development, a particular role has been assigned to Metalinguistic Awareness (MLA) as a major constituent of the cognitive development of experienced language learners, while being itself a key to accelerated language learning (e.g., Jessner, 2008 ). The present study explores the relationship between multilingual usage and MLA in French-speaking Quebeckers (n = 66) with different language backgrounds who start to learn German after English in a formal setting. ‘Multilingual experience’ was operationalized by the frequency and the diversity of foreign language use across 10 different contexts of use. A reflexive dimension of MLA was assessed by means of the THAM-3 ( Pinto & El Euch, 2015 ), and complemented by think-aloud protocols produced during a multilingual translation task, which reflected an applied dimension of MLA. Multiple regression analyses suggest that both frequency and diversity of non-native language use in specifically literacy-based activities predicted the applied dimension of MLA.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDutch Journal of Applied LinguisticsSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207