MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006992344 · doi:10.1080/0958822042000319683

Educational Use of Databases in CALL

2004· article· en· W2006992344 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Assisted Language Learning · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePerlDatabaseThe InternetProfiling (computer programming)Process (computing)Set (abstract data type)TemplateWorld Wide WebInformation retrievalNatural language processingProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents the idea that databases<fnr rid="b"><fn id="b">The term database is used here to include text extraction from databanks with languages such as PERL because of similarities between databases and databanks in the process of having a centralized set of information manipulated and then sending results through templates or automatic generation.</fn> are very useful tools for teaching languages over the Internet. Databases in Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) are commonly used in three ways: for reference sources such as dictionaries, in the management of large websites, and for data processing such as language tests and learners' profiling. Such types of use are illustrated by a number of databases that are described in detail in this article. A basic description of the construction of an interactive database is also provided.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.220 · 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