MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004797503 · doi:10.1017/s0266078414000376

Back to basics: Cracking a nut in using English indefinite articles

2014· article· en· W2004797503 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yang Ping

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Today · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPronunciationLinguisticsGrammarComputer scienceVocabularyLexicologyContext (archaeology)PsychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is focused on basic English language knowledge and skills by looking at the circumstances in which English indefinite article, either ‘a’ or ‘an’, is selectively used with authentic examples cited from a few widely read Australian newspapers. Three fundamental elements of a language consist of its pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar in language teaching terms (phonetics, lexicology and syntax are respectively used in linguistic terms). These terms are used in this discussion which is oriented to general ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) users. The fact is that most of them tend to pay less attention to pronunciation than to vocabulary or grammar, and approach these fundamental language elements in isolation rather than reflect on their connections. To address this issue, the author shows that pronunciation and grammar are connected and that it is important to get back to basics in language learning through investigating distinctions between two indefinite articles. There are four reasons for this investigation. First, examination of their distinctions in context crosses over the knowledge boundary between pronunciation and grammar. Making connection and association between the two language elements helps ESL/EFL learners develop analytical skills and enables reflective learning experience (Brockbank & McGill, 2007).

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.018
Scholarly communication0.0070.030
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish TodaySame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207