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
The purpose of the present study is to examine whether the summarizing skills in the first language (L1) of learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) affect their summary performances in a second language (L2). To examine the transferring of L1 summarizing skills to L2 summary performance it is necessary to figure out which L1 knowledge and skills EFL learners already possess. A total of 47 Japanese university students with low intermediate English proficiency were asked to write a summary in their L2 (i.e., English) and L1 (i.e., Japanese) of a text written in each of the same languages after they received a quick lecture on how to write a summary. The relationship between their L1 and L2 summarizing skills was examined by using the scores from their L1 and L2 summary performances. The results showed that a small variance of L1 summarizing skill affected the overall summary performances in L2, which supports the Cummins’s (1976) Linguistics Threshold Hypothesis. This study concludes by offering several suggestions for teachers of summary writing, and implications for future research.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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