MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analyzing and Understanding Interlanguage

2019· other· en· W3207577886 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterlanguageLinguisticsSecond-language acquisitionPsychologyFossilizationSyntaxLanguage acquisitionSecond languageTransfer of trainingNegative transferFirst languageComputer scienceCognitive psychologyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interlanguage theory analyzes the temporary linguistic system that target language (TL) learners develop to express meanings in the TL. A major limitation of this theory is that it claims that only five percent of adult second language (L2) learners achieve full competence. Another limitation is that it compares bilingual speakers with monolingual ones. In spite of these limitations, understanding the cognitive processes of interlanguage: language transfer , transfer of training , strategies of L2 learning , communication strategies , and overgeneralization of L2 rules , as well as its characteristics: permeability , dynamic nature , systematicity , stability , mutual intelligibility , backsliding , and variability , benefits L2 teachers and learners. Recent research challenges the monolingual bias in second language acquisition (SLA) and emphasizes that the interlanguage of most L2 learners is dynamic and not fossilized. There is no critical period for learning syntax, because some adult learners achieve full grammatical mastery of the TL if they receive appropriate grammatical instruction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.272 · 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