MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042350676 · doi:10.3138/cmlr.60.4.439

Second Language Pre-service Teachers as Learners: The Language Portfolio Project

2004· article· en· W2042350676 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Helen Christiansen, Bernard Laplante

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioClass (philosophy)Action researchSet (abstract data type)NarrativeMathematics educationPedagogyComputer sciencePsychologyLinguisticsBusinessArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on a study of pre-service French immersion teachers who were required to compile second language (L2) portfolios as part of their professional development. Documents included a brief biography of the students' lives as speakers and learners of French; an action plan in which students assessed their L2 proficiency and set specific language learning goals; artefacts from both in-class and out-of-class learning experiences; and a final narrative entry commenting on the degree of success of their action plan. Volunteers participated in semi-structured audiotaped interviews and allowed their portfolios to be copied. Although the project was not as successful as initially anticipated, the process of compiling portfolios created a new space for L2 development. The portfolio became a tool mediating language learning activities. Furthermore, students showed that they were less capable of working autonomously than had been anticipated and that they required encouragement and support throughout the project.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantesSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207