Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project investigates how the acquisition of the future of probability in Spanish can be facilitated through classroom instruction, taking into consideration what L1 English and L1 French learners of L2 Spanish bring to the process of acquisition of this linguistic feature and how language instructors may need to manipulate the input to facilitate learning. We designed an experiment which measures different outcomes of form focused and meaning based instructional methods compared to the one currently used at the University of Ottawa in the Spanish program. We have developed grammaticality judgment and limited written production tasks. We also consider long-term effects of the instruction based on the results of the delayed posttest. Our preliminary results suggest that there is an advantage of meaning based instruction over the form focused one on both tests. At the same time, both instructional methods have had more positive effect on the learner acquisition compared to the results of the control group in both explicit and implicit knowledge. As expected, French L1 learners have a slight benefit over the English L1 learners due to the positive transfer from their L1 into L2 Spanish.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".