The Acquisition of Past Temporality by Two ESL Learners at Different Levels of Proficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The acquisition of English past temporality has been a topic of discussion in the second language acquisition field. Most of the studies have looked at a case study or a group of learners of the same level of proficiency. The findings indicated that learners with low proficiency level keep relying on using the lexical means as their verbal morphology begin established. No study has compared between two case studies or two group of different level of proficiency to find whether this phenomenon can be true with learners of different level of proficiency. This study sought to find this by examining the development of English past temporality with two case studies of learners of English as a second language. Each learner was interviewed for 20 minutes. The results indicated that there is a difference between the two learners in terms of the level of English past temporality mastery. However, it was found that even the second learner has reached a level of mastery of English past temporality; he still relies on using the lexical means.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".