MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W313285932 · doi:10.3138/cmlr.2070.51

L1-L2 Differences in the Acquisition of Form-Meaning Pairings in a Second Language

2015· article· en· W313285932 on OpenAlex
Kevin McManus

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNewcastle UniversityBritish Academy
KeywordsMeaning (existential)GermanLinguisticsPsychologySecond-language acquisitionFirst languageLanguage proficiencyLanguage acquisitionSecond languagePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This paper examines the impact of L1/L2 form-meaning differences in the domain of aspect to investigate whether L2 learners are able to acquire properties of the L2 that are different from the L1. Oral data were collected from English- and German-speaking university learners of French L2 (n = 75) at two different levels of proficiency. The results show that appropriate use of aspect morphology at the advanced stages of learning is significantly influenced by differences in L1 background, with significant differences also revealed between French native speakers and L2 learners. The results suggest that an important role must be attributed to L1/L2 form-meaning mapping differences.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.234 · 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