Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present meta-analysis aimed to improve on Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH) by incorporating it into a broader framework that predicts incidental vocabulary learning. Studies testing the ILH were systematically collected and 42 studies meeting our inclusion criteria were analyzed. The model-selection approach was used to determine the optimal statistical model (i.e., a set of predictor variables) that best predicts learning gains. Following previous findings, we investigated whether the prediction of the ILH improved by (a) examining the influence of each level of individual ILH components (need, search, and evaluation), (b) adopting optimal operationalization of the ILH components and test format grouping, and (c) including other empirically motivated variables. Results showed that the resulting models explained a greater variance in learning gains. Based on the models, we created incidental vocabulary learning formulas. Using these formulas, one can calculate the effectiveness index of activities to predict their relative effectiveness more accurately on incidental vocabulary learning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".