Investigating the Receptive Language Proficiency and Metaphorical Competence of Saudi EFL Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to examine the correlation between receptive metaphoric competence and language proficiency among Saudi English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, while also investigating the influence of students' language competency levels on their metaphoric competence. The study involved a sample of 94 EFL learners, and a quantitative research approach was employed. Inferential statistics were utilized to address the research questions and hypotheses. The findings revealed a significant relationship between receptive metaphoric competence and language proficiency. Moreover, this study aims to address gaps in previous research by exploring conceptual metaphors and investigating the correlation between Receptive Metaphoric Competence and reading proficiency. By doing so, it contributes to the theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical advancements in the field of research and education. Additionally, this research holds considerable significance in the domain of language studies as it investigates the impacts of second language acquisition on Saudi learners. Furthermore, it provides valuable insights into the area of L2 metaphoric competency, thereby making a noteworthy contribution to the existing body of knowledge in this field.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".