MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989825485 · doi:10.11139/cj.28.3.621-638

From the Mouths of Canadian University Students

2011· article· en· W1989825485 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCALICO Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer-Assisted InstructionWorld Wide WebMathematics educationLinguisticsPsychologyMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents student perceptions about different types of web-based activities used to seek information for French language learning. Group interviews were conducted with 71 students in five Canadian universities to elicit data on their use of the Internet for information-seeking activities. These students use the Web for three main purposes: firstly, to expand their knowledge base by searching for information for language projects; secondly, to concentrate on form-focused activities by consulting online dictionaries or translation software; and finally, to organize their studies by consulting language course management websites. Our results are presented in a continuum of characteristics articulated by the students. Four continuums were identified: the first is goal-related (maintain/improve); the second is action-oriented (check/gather); the third involves the engagement of the students (receive/search), while the fourth one relates to the nature of the information (fact/culture).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.153 · 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