MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415824105 · doi:10.1111/flan.70035

Comprehension of implied meaning in Chinese second language listening

2025· article· en· W4415824105 on OpenAlex
Jiafan Zhang

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueForeign Language Annals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComprehensionMeaning (existential)Listening comprehensionChinese as a foreign languageHeritage languageRecallLanguage proficiencySecond languageComprehension approach

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Listening comprehension is crucial for second language (L2) communication and acquisition. However, it has received less attention than reading, given the transient nature of speech signals and the intangible cognitive processes involved in it. The current study investigates how Chinese L2 learners process implied meanings in listening comprehension and whether heritage language learning affects the comprehension of implied meanings. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from 22 heritage and 24 non‐heritage Chinese learners employing an implied meaning test and the stimulated recall procedure. Results show that Chinese L2 learners in this study exhibited relatively strong abilities in understanding implied meanings in listening, and that heritage learners outperformed non‐heritage language learners in comprehension of implied meanings. Background knowledge and semantic clues were found to be positively related to the accuracy in comprehending implied meanings. Pedagogical implications are provided in light of the study's findings.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.279 · 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