MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782080070 · doi:10.6018/ijes/2013/1/138701

L1 transfer in article selection for generic reference by Spanish, Turkish and Japanese L2 learners

2013· article· en· W2782080070 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Neal Snape, Marı́a del Pilar Garcı́a Mayo, Ayşe Gürel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBoğaziçi ÜniversitesiUniversity of TorontoEuskal Herriko UnibertsitateaEusko Jaurlaritza
KeywordsTurkishPluralSelection (genetic algorithm)LinguisticsNounComputer scienceSentenceTask (project management)Second-language acquisitionNatural language processingPsychologyArtificial intelligencePhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines second language (L2) acquisition of English generic noun phrases (NPs) by Spanish, Turkish and Japanese learners. The aim is to identify the role of the first language (L1) in the L2 acquisition of definite NP-level generics and indefinite sentence-level generics with singular, bare plural, and mass generic nouns. The four languages in this study differ in the way they express generic interpretations: English and Spanish have article systems, Turkish has an indefinite article, but no definite article, and Japanese lacks an article system. Advanced and upper intermediate L2 learners were tested via a forced choice elicitation task. The results reveal different patterns of article selection across the three groups of L2 learners, which correspond with L1 transfer effects. Our findings suggest that L2 article choice is largely determined by the way the L1 realizes generic reference.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English StudiesSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207