MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210333460 · doi:10.53103/cjlls.v1i3.19

Influence of Higher-Level Skills, Transfer and Culture-Specific Background Knowledge on L2 Reading among Bosnian Students

2021· article· en· W4210333460 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.

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 Journal of Language and Literature Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Practices and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBosnianReading (process)PsychologyReading comprehensionFirst languageCognitionLinguisticsTask (project management)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reading in a second language and how reading in L1 and L2 differ, has been a subject of numerous studies for a long time. Reading in a language other than our mother tongue is not an easy task. Reading in L1 shares many elements of reading in L2, but the processes may differ. Some of the basic questions regarding this matter involve cognitive processes or certain strategies involved in L1 and L2 reading. This paper aimed to investigate the influence of higher-level skills, transfer, and culture-specific background knowledge on the L2 reading process. In addition, it also aimed to explore the Bosnian students opinions on differences in reading Bosnian and English texts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.330 · 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