MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009556587 · doi:10.5539/elt.v7n2p63

Multiple Intelligence Scores of Science Stream Students and Their Relation with Reading Competency in Malaysian University English Test (MUET)

2014· article· en· W2009556587 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norizan Abdul Razak, Nuramirah Zaini

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Reading comprehensionPsychologyTest (biology)Mathematics educationEmotional intelligenceInterpersonal communicationCognitionComprehensionRelation (database)LinguisticsDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many researches have shown that different approach needed in analysing linear and non-linear reading comprehension texts and different cognitive skills are required. This research attempts to discover the relationship between Science Stream students’ reading competency on linear and non-linear texts in Malaysian University English Test (MUET) with Multiple Intelligence Theory as well as aims to reveal the prominent type of Multiple Intelligence that significantly predicts the Science Stream students’ performance on the different texts of reading component. In collecting the data, the researcher used two instruments namely the Reading Comprehension of Malaysian University English Test (MUET) and Multiple Intelligence Questionnaire. The participants were 60 diploma students joining in UiTM Alor Gajah Melaka and they were chosen to represent the Science Stream group. Furthermore, the result of the correlation testing shown positive correlation of the total score in MUET reading component as well as in linear text section with Music-Rhythmic, Bodily-Kinaesthetic and Interpersonal Intelligence.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicEmotional Intelligence and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207