MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1862977469 · doi:10.1558/cj.v20i3.533-548

Multiple Learner Errors and Meaningful Feedback

2003· article· en· W1862977469 on OpenAlexaff
Trude Heift

Bibliographic record

VenueCALICO Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFocus (optics)ParsingVocabularySentenceNatural language processingDomain (mathematical analysis)GrammarArtificial intelligenceQueuePhraseRule-based machine translationLinguisticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a web-based ICALL system for German that provides error-specific feedback suited to learner expertise. The main focus of the discussion is on the Domain Knowledge and the Filtering Module. The Domain Knowledge represents the knowledge of linguistic rules and vocabulary, and its goal is to parse sentences and phrases to produce sets of phrase descriptors. Phrase descriptors provide very detailed information on the types of errors and their location in the sentence. The Filtering Module is responsible for processing multiple learner errors. Motivated by pedagogical and linguistic design decisions, the Filtering Module ranks student errors by way of an Error Priority Queue. The Error Priority Queue is flexible: the grammar constraints can be reordered to reflect the desired emphasis of a particular exercise. In addition, a language instructor might choose not to report some errors. The paper concludes with a study that supports the need for a CALL system that addresses multiple errors by considering language teaching pedagogy.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations51
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCALICO JournalSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207