MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1719108759

Vocabulary Learning of Socially Relevant/Irrelevant Texts by English Students of Islamic Azad University

2012· article· en· W1719108759 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zohreh Tahvildar, Ali Emamjome Zade

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of academic and applied studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocabularyPsychologyLinguisticsVocabulary learningTest (biology)Foreign languageIslamEnglish vocabularyEnglish as a foreign languageMathematics educationHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning English vocabulary has been considered somehow problematic at all levels. The present research endeavors to investigate the degrees of difficulty in the process of learning of new vocabulary in familiar and unfamiliar contexts for Iranian learners of English as a foreign language. In the first phase, 113 subjects were grouped into three English proficiency levels on the basis of their scores on the TEOFL Test; 40 at pre-intermediate, 38 at intermediate, and 35 at upper-intermediate group. Then they were given two texts to read; one about Halloween, relatively unfamiliar to Iranian students, and another text about Chaharshanbe Suri, a familiar issue for Iranian students. The subjects were to mark all unknown words and, if possible, guess the meanings of words. All successful guessing resulted from contextual clues were crossed out lest it should nullify the whole investigation. Statistical analysis of the participants' performance indicates the following: a) guessing new vocabulary in familiar and unfamiliar texts pose different levels of difficulty; unfamiliar texts being more difficult. b) This difficulty pattern is not affected by the proficiency level of the students.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of academic and applied studiesSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207