MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050065708 · doi:10.5539/elt.v1n1p19

Talking Terms: Choosing and Using Terminology for EFL Classrooms

2008· article· en· W2050065708 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roger Berry

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTerminologyLinguisticsMathematics educationPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the use of grammatical terminology in English language teaching. Accepting that it is a common feature of many classrooms, the paper attempts to help teachers understand the role and nature of terminology. A distinction is made between terms which are transparent (e.g. ‘countable’), opaque (e.g. ‘verb’) or iconic (e.g. ‘–ing form’). A number of criteria for evaluating the suitability of terminology for classroom use are also offered. In this way it is hoped that teachers will be better equipped to make well-informed decisions about the terms they choose to use in the classroom.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0130.014
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207