A Video-Conferencing English–Spanish eTandem Exchange
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzed eTandem video-conferencing exchanges between five pairs of university students of English as a foreign language (EFL) and Spanish as a foreign language (SFL). The exchanges, which involved discussion of seven tasks, took place on a weekly basis. Drawing on an interactionist perspective (Ellis et al., 2001a; Loewen, 2005), the study explored the impact of incidental noticing on subsequent language learning. Data were collected from two sources: transcripts of all the video-conferencing sessions and immediate and delayed post-tests. Drawing on Loewen’s (2005) framework of analysis, the transcripts revealed that students generated a total of 915 focus-on-form episodes (FFEs). As measured by the post-tests, participants recalled over half of the targeted FFE linguistic items. In contrast to previous studies (Loewen, 2005; Shekary & Tahririan, 2006), where successful uptake was a predictor for L2 learning, the present study revealed that the only significant predictor was deferred timing. More generally, the present study supports the claim that eTandem video-conferencing is a useful activity for promoting L2 acquisition.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 it