The Effects of Repetition on Incidental Vocabulary Learning: A Meta‐Analysis of Correlational Studies
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: QualitativeConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.303
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.990
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
This meta‐analysis aimed to clarify the complex relationship between repetition and second language (L2) incidental vocabulary learning by meta‐analyzing primary studies reporting correlation coefficients between the number of encounters and vocabulary learning. We synthesized and quantitatively analyzed 45 effect sizes from 26 studies ( N = 1,918) to calculate the mean effect size of the frequency–learning relationship and to explore the extent to which 10 empirically motivated variables moderate this relationship. Results showed that there was a medium effect ( r = .34) of repetition on incidental vocabulary learning. Subsequent moderator analyses revealed that variability in the size of repetition effects across studies was explained by learner variables (age, vocabulary knowledge), treatment variables (spaced learning, visual support, engagement, range in number of encounters), and methodological differences (nonword use, forewarning of an upcoming comprehension test, vocabulary test format). Based on the findings, we suggest future directions for L2 incidental vocabulary learning research. Open Practices This article has been awarded an Open Data badge. All data are publicly accessible via the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/rmnk2 . Learn more about the Open Practices badges from the Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki .
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.
The record
- Venue
- Language Learning
- Topic
- Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Field
- Psychology
- Canadian institutions
- Western University
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- VocabularyRepetition (rhetorical device)ModerationPsychologyVocabulary developmentMeta-analysisComprehensionTest (biology)Cognitive psychologyMathematics educationLinguisticsSocial psychologyTeaching method
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes