Notice bibliographique
Résumé
05–314 Alderson, J. Charles (Lancaster U, UK) & Ari Huhta , The development of a suite of computer-based diagnostic tests based on the Common European Framework . Language Testing (London, UK) 22 .3 (2005), 301–320. 05–315 Al-Hamly, Mashael & Christine Coombe (Kuwait U, Kuwait), To change or not to change: investigating the value of MCQ answer changing for Gulf Arab students . Language Testing (London, UK) 22 .4 (2005), 509–531. 05–316 Broadfoot, Patricia M. (U of Bristol, UK), Dark alleys and blind bends: testing the language of learning . Language Testing (London, UK) 22 .2 (2005), 123–141. 05–317 Cumming, Alister (U of Toronto, Canada; acumming@oise.utoronto.ca ) , Robert Kantor, Kyoko Baba, Usman Erdosy, Keanre Eouanzoui & Mark James , Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL . Assessing Writing (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 10 .1 (2005), 5–43. 05–318 Eckes, Thomas (TestDaF Institute, the Netherlands), Melanie Ellis, Vita Kalnberzina, Karmen Piorn, Claude Springer, Krisztina Szollás & Constance Tsagari , Progress and problems in reforming public language examinations in Europe: cameos from the Baltic States, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, France and Germany . Language Testing (London,UK) 22 .3 (2005), 355–377. 05–319 Figueras, Neus (Department of Education, Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain), Brian North, Sauli Takala, Norman Verhelst & Piet Van Avermaet , Relating examinations to the Common European Framework: a manual . Language Testing (London, UK) 22 .3 (2005), 261–279. 05–320 Green, Anthony (Cambridge ESOL Examinations, Cambridge, UK), EAP study recommendations and score gains on the IELTS Academic Writing test . Assessing Writing (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 10 .1 (2005), 44–60. 05–321 Green, Rita & Dianne Wall (Lancaster U, UK), Language testing in the military: problems, politics and progress . Language Testing (London,UK) 22 .3 (2005), 379–398. 05–322 Hasselgreen, Angela (The U of Bergen, Norway), Assessing the language of young learners . Language Testing (London,UK) 22 .3 (2005), 337–354. 05–323 Klein, Joseph ( kleinj@mail.biu.ac.il ) & David Taub , The effect of variations in handwriting and print on evaluation of student essays . Assessing Writing (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 10 .2 (2005), 134–148. 05–324 Little, David (Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland), The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process . Language Testing (London, UK) 22 .3 (2005), 321–336. 05–325 Lumley, Tom & Barry O'Sullivan (Australian Council for Educational Research, Australia), The effect of test-taker gender, audience and topic on task performance in tape-mediated assessment of speaking . Language Testing (London,UK) 22 .4 (2005), 415–437. 05–326 Luxia, Qi (Guandong U of Foreign Studies, China), Stakeholders' conflicting aims undermine the washback function of a high-stakes test . Language Testing (London, UK) 22 .2 (2005), 142–173. 05–327 Poehner, Matthew E. & James P. Lantolf (The Pennsylvania State U, USA), Dynamic assessment in the language classroom . Language Teaching Research (London, UK) 9 .3 (2005), 233–265. 05–328 Stansfield, Charles W. & William E. Hewitt (Second Language Testing Inc., USA), Examining the predictive validity of a screening test for court interpreters . Language Testing (London, UK) 22 .4 (2005), 438–462. 05–329 Trites, Latricia (Murray State U, USA) & Mary McGroarty , Reading to learn and reading to integrate: new tasks for reading comprehension tests? Language Testing (London, UK) 22 .2 (2005), 174–210. 05–330 Uiterwijk, Henny (Citogroep, Arnem, the Netherlands) & Ton Vallen , Linguistic sources of item bias for second generation immigrants in Dutch tests . Language Testing (London, UK) 22 .2 (2005), 211–234. 05–331 Weems, Gail H. (Arkansas Little Rock U, USA; ghweems@ualr.edu ), Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie & Daniel Lustig , Profiles of respondents who respond inconsistently to positively- and negatively-worded items on rating scales . Evaluation & Research in Education (Clevedon, UK) 17 .1 (2003), 45–60. 05–332 Weir, Cyril J. (Roehampton U, UK), Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests . Language Testing (London, UK) 22 .3 (2005), 281–300. 05–333 Xi, Xiaoming (U of California, USA), Do visual chunks and planning impact performance on the graph description task in the SPEAK exam? Language Testing (London, UK) 22 .4 (2005), 463–508.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».