MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012415008 · doi:10.5539/elt.v13n4p1

The Relationship between the Saudi Cadets’ Learning Motivation and Their Vocabulary Knowledge

2020· article· en· W3012415008 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Falah Alqahtani

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyVocabularyRegression analysisVocabulary learningPopulationPerceptionForeign languageSocial psychologyCorrelationMathematics educationLinguisticsStatisticsDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is a report on the study of the relationship between foreign/second language (L2) motivation and vocabulary knowledge. The population of the study is the cadets of a military academy in Saudi Arabia who study English as a foreign language. The total number of participants is 195 Saudis. The author uses the L2 Motivational Self System to investigate the cadets’ L2 motivation and the vocabulary test “X-Lex” (Meara & Milton, 2003) to measure their vocabulary size (VS). The correlation analysis shows a positive moderate statistical correlation between the students’ L2 motivation and their VS because the Ideal L2 Self, the Language Learning Attitudes, and the Intended Learning Effort had a linear relationship with the VS. Nevertheless, the regression analysis reveals that none of these motivational scales is a predictor of the students’ VS. Finally, the correlation analysis and the regression analysis disclose a statistically significant correlation between the Saudi cadets’ self-perception as competent English users and their L2 motivation as well as their VS.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207