MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013598089 · doi:10.3138/cmlr.60.2.123

Internet-Based ESL for Distance Adult Students - A Framework for Dynamic Language Learning

2003· article· en· W2013598089 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ruth Reynard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindsetComputer scienceNegotiationThe InternetLanguage acquisitionProcess (computing)Autonomous learningDistance educationMathematics educationDynamic assessmentMultimediaPsychologyWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research study investigated the potential of Internet technology to provide a dynamic and autonomous language-learning environment for adult distance language learners. The study focused on five essential characteristics of dynamic language learning and observed the online study activity of the students in relation to these. Learners were presented with various study resources and tools from which they could freely self-select as required. The lessons were constructed through a process of open dialogue and negotiation between students and teachers, integrating preset content with individualized assignments and actual language use. While students demonstrated an interest to explore and use the resources and tools, teachers found the environment to be overwhelming. Therefore, while student activity was tracked, teacher intervention was random and ineffective. Challenging the existing approach and mindset of teachers was difficult.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantesSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207