Metacognition has informed research on second and foreign language (L2) learning for three decades, while AI tools have supported such learning for nearly as long. Yet, no review has examined how the field conceptualises and measures metacognition under AI mediation. This systematic review identified 60 eligible studies published between 2016 and May 2026. Each study was coded on fourteen dimensions anchored in established taxonomies and appraised with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Only four eligible studies fall within the pre-ChatGPT portion of the review window, from January 2016 to November 2022; 56 were published during the subsequent three and a half years. Three findings emerge. First, measurement is narrowly concentrated: 98% of the 56 post-ChatGPT studies measured self-reported metacognitive regulation, and 66% relied on self-report alone. Only one study in the full corpus measured metacognitive accuracy. Five post-ChatGPT studies combined an AI-absent comparison with process-level data, and only one of these also measured judgement accuracy. Second, 41% of post-ChatGPT studies used tools that combined two or more functional orientations within a single interface, a configuration not represented by the field’s inherited four-category taxonomy of AI applications. Third, none of the 18 contrast-based studies assigned the regulatory operation to the system in place of the learner. In every design that specified the division of labour, the learner retained that operation; three designs did not specify it. The condition most in need of testing therefore remains untested. Reported findings skew positive, but correlational and qualitative designs account for a disproportionate share of that evidence. The review concludes with a research agenda centred on calibration and process data.

Introduction: Motivated by the urgent need to address urban health inequities, this scoping review critiques the mainstream public health discourse that champions therapeutic urban agriculture (UA) as an accessible mental health intervention. This narrative often obscures the systemic spatial inequities and structural barriers marginalized populations face. To address this gap, we systematically mapped the physical, economic, and institutional mechanisms impeding therapeutic UA for vulnerable communities. Methods: Adhering to JBI and PRISMA-ScR methodologies, we executed a systematic retrieval across Web of Science and Scopus from database inception to March 2026, yielding 304 records. Focusing on English-language empirical literature, the epistemic scope of this synthesis primarily reflects the socio-spatial dynamics and planning frameworks of the Global North, rather than claiming universal global applicability. By applying a Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework, we retained and analyzed 30 core empirical articles. Results: Our thematic synthesis reveals three primary structural barriers constraining UA’s therapeutic potential. Physically, land tenure precarity frequently relegates growers to fragmented or marginalized geographies. Economically, the reliance on competitive short-term funding burdens grassroots initiatives, while successful greening interventions paradoxically trigger eco-gentrification. Institutionally, procedural exclusion and social stigmatization downgrade community-led agricultural spaces to transient interim uses within broader urban agendas. Discussion: Consequently, the synthesis indicates that implementing localized greening projects without resolving these structural vulnerabilities remains counterproductive. As its primary contribution, this review proposes a multidimensional “healing justice” framework, asserting that to transition UA into a permanent public health infrastructure, urban planning must prioritize structural interventions, such as Community Land Trusts (CLTs) and anti-displacement spatial policies, to secure spatial agency for marginalized groups.

Cognitive load and foreign-language anxiety are often examined separately in second-language learning, although both may arise when limited processing resources are strained. This meta-analysis examined whether the two constructs covary and why their association matters for models of L2 performance. A PRISMA-guided review identified eleven eligible studies (N = 1250), which were synthesised using a random-effects model. Two independent machine coders repeated the full-text eligibility assessment, effect-size extraction, and quality appraisal; two of the authors then verified every coding against the source reports and resolved all discrepancies. This process recovered one wrongly excluded study and corrected one misextracted coefficient. Greater load was associated with greater anxiety, r = 0.41, 95% CI [0.29, 0.52], and the estimate was r = 0.37, 95% CI [0.27, 0.46], after the most influential study was removed. All included estimates were positive. A specification analysis that substituted every available alternative component, wave, subscale, subgroup, and path yielded pooled estimates from 0.38 to 0.45; setting all eleven studies simultaneously to their least and most favourable alternatives widened the range to 0.29–0.52. Heterogeneity was high, I² = 80.1%, and the 95% prediction interval [0.03, 0.69] extended almost to zero. The pooled estimate therefore represents the centre of a dispersed literature rather than an expected result for a new study. An exploratory contrast between real-time and self-paced tasks was not significant and was confounded with language skill. The review also identified a reporting gap: thirteen additional reports measured both constructs but provided no statistic linking them. Conventional publication-bias diagnostics cannot address this form of selective non-reporting, which means that the pooled estimate is best regarded as an upper bound. This first construct-specific synthesis of the load–anxiety association connects cognitive architecture and attentional control with research on L2 anxiety and indicates why instructional studies should assess cognitive and affective outcomes together. Because the evidence is concurrent, predominantly self-reported, and drawn almost entirely from Chinese-speaking settings, it cannot establish that either construct causes the other or that both reflect a single mechanism.