Le rôle de la mémoire de travail dans l’acquisition incidente du vocabulaire en langue seconde durant la compréhension orale chez les enfants : une revue de littérature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing vocabulary to understand oral and written language in first language (L1) and second language (L2) is a major challenge for both adults and young learners. The learning of words also depends on the working memory (WM), which is central to human cognition and language learning; several studies have established its important role in learning L1 (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989, 1990) and, even more so, in L2 (Baddeley & al., 1998; Gathercole & al., 1999; Service & Kohonen, 1995). Despite previous studies on the role of WM in the incidental acquisition of second language vocabulary during listening comprehension, the need for clarification on this role, especially in children, remains to be explored. The aim of this article is to present a synthesis of the literature on the role of WM in the incidental acquisition of second language vocabulary during listening comprehension in children to highlight this need for the necessary clarifications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".