MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390229769 · doi:10.5539/elt.v17n1p65

Extensive Reading as a Means of Vocabulary Development amongst English Language Learners in Nigeria: Consolidating on Knowledge

2023· article· en· W4390229769 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nnenna Gertrude Ezeh, Tochukwu Amara Olaolu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)VocabularyFluencyMeaning (existential)Vocabulary developmentPsychologyLinguisticsExtensive readingLanguage acquisitionMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mastery and fluency in a language interestingly, requires vocabulary development which entails learning of multiple active and passive vocabularies in that language. Language is built on words which are essential for communication with symbols of meaning. Reading is a receptive linguistic process that involves interpretation of written symbols which are meaning preserving. In our contemporary times, the act of reading is gradually going extinct, because of obvious reasons – advancements in Science and Technology which has given rise to computer-assisted learning, social media support in information dissemination, high cost of publishing, time constraints and lack of interest in reading, especially amongst youths who prefer accessing information through social media. However, a common saying adjudges great readers to great minds with great experiences, akin to an extensive traveler. This paper ascertains the importance of extensive reading in vocabulary development for academic success, with positive implications for language learners of English.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207