MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900497421 · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-12936

Factors Impacting Collocation Recognition and Controlled Production by ESL Speakers

2018· dissertation· en· W2900497421 on OpenAlexaff
Olga Makinina

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollocation (remote sensing)VocabularyComputer scienceLinguisticsComprehensionPsychologyActive listeningReading (process)Test (biology)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

implement many strategies for teaching/testing collocations, varying from intuitive noticing to repetition/drilling and analysis-based activities. However, collocational competence is slow to develop in learners of English as a second/additional language (L2), and so far, there is no clear understanding of factors impacting collocation acquisition. This dissertation examines external and internal factors influencing collocation recognition and controlled production by speakers of English as L2 in three consecutive studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207