MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2297948287

The Meek One. A Fantastic Story. Fyodor Dostoevsky. an Annotated Russian Reader

2013· article· en· W2297948287 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julia Mikhailova

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Slavonic Papers · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueRussian Literature and Bakhtin Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésParagraphVocabularyReading (process)FyodorLinguisticsComputer scienceSection (typography)LiteratureHistoryArtPhilosophyWorld Wide Web
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Julia Titus, ed. The Meek One. A Fantastic Story. Fyodor Dostoevsky. An Annotated Russian Reader. Illustrations by Kristen Robinson. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011. xv, 154 pp. $20.00, paper.The Meek One is a Russian reader geared towards intermediate and advanced learners of Russian. Key features of this reader include author's suggestions on how to use the book; cultural, historical and linguistic commentary in English necessary to comprehend the text; vocabulary exercises; oral and written assignments; vocabulary quizzes, and an answer key. The reader has extensive annotation of texts and glosses in the margins, which should enhance the reading process and make it more enjoyable. The glosses provide translation as well as some grammatical information (for example, aspect, case governance).The beginning of the reader provides students a brief biography of Fedor Dostoevskii, the origin of the plot, and the work's main ideas as well as notes on the main characters. The story itself is eighty-four pages long divided into ten chapters. Each paragraph is numbered; the entire text and exercises have stresses. Double-spacing of the text makes it easy to read and allows the student space to write notes in-between lines. Several illustrations accompany the text and can be used as interpretive preor post-reading activities.The chapters are followed by a section Review and which offers comprehension questions (called Questions for Discussion), work with vocabulary (Active Vocabulary), and a section with oral and written exercises geared towards the practice of the active vocabulary. As a guide for comprehension the author asks students to read questions for discussion prior to reading the text. I would suggest that students study the active vocabulary section prior to reading the corresponding chapter.The Vocabulary covers different parts of speech. Verbs are presented with information with regard to their aspectual pair and consonant alternations in the paradigm. However, the visual manner in which the verbs, their explanations, and conjugations are presented creates an impression that learners are responsible for pages of new vocabulary. Since it is a bit difficult to navigate the vocabulary pages, learners should be encouraged to highlight the verbs to make them stand out from the list. Psychologically such a device might help learners see and memorize new words more readily, rather than diving into what feels like an ocean of unknown lexicon.New vocabulary can be practised via meaningful fill-in-the-blanks exercises. However, the words to be reviewed appear in the same order in which they are listed in the Vocabulary, making some exercises easy to complete-even without learning the words-by simply going down the list of new vocabulary and filling it in into the blanks.Next, students can study word morphology (roots and semantic nests of words) and take a vocabulary quiz. However, it might be more beneficial to cover the morphology section both before studying the main Active vocabulary list and reading each chapter, so students can draw a connection between old and new knowledge prior to seeing new words in context. This is something that the author fails to explain in the preface on how to use the reader, but something that a teacher would need to focus students' attention on: students need pre-reading exercises which are missing from the reader.The Exercises section ends with Other Activities that consist of oral and written exercises, which are unfortunately repetitive and monotonous. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,904
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,255
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Slavonic PapersMême sujetRussian Literature and Bakhtin StudiesTravaux en français237 207