MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392371712 · doi:10.1017/s1366728924000129

The role of prosodic sensitivity and executive functions in L2 reading: The moderated mediation effect

2024· article· en· W4392371712 on OpenAlexaff
Lan Fang, Weilin Liu, Rangke Wu, John W. Schwieter, Ruiming Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBilingualism Language and Cognition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWilfrid Laurier University
FundersMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsMediationPsychologyModerated mediationReading (process)Cognitive psychologySensitivity (control systems)Executive functionsLinguisticsSocial psychologyCognitionPolitical scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Prosody refers to stress and intonation patterns in a language. Previous studies have found that prosodic sensitivity (PS) and executive functions can affect reading comprehension in first (L1) and second languages (L2). The current study examined these factors among a group of L1 Mandarin speakers learning L2 English who participated in a series of tasks measuring phonological awareness, Mandarin tone sensitivity, English PS, along with three specific executive functions – namely, cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, and working memory. The results demonstrated that Mandarin tone sensitivity and cognitive flexibility mediated English PS and reading. A simple slope analysis showed that PS positively predicted word reading for readers with higher but not lower cognitive flexibility. These results imply that PS in L2 reading is affected by both prosodic transfer of L1 tone sensitivity and cognitive flexibility.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBilingualism Language and CognitionSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207