MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054933307 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2013.09.026

A study on relationship between English proficiency and information literacy

2013· article· en· W2054933307 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hamidreza Hoseini Dana, Hamidreza Karkehabadi, Elyas Elhami, Faeze Moeini

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaPearson product-moment correlation coefficientVariablesPsychologyVariable (mathematics)Regression analysisCorrelationMathematics educationLiteracyEmpirical researchStatisticsMathematicsPedagogyPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an empirical investigation to find the relationship between English proficiency and information literacy among some selected students from Islamic Azad University in city of Semnan, Iran.The proposed study uses regression analysis as well as Pearson correlation ratio to investigate the relationship between these two variables where information literacy is the dependent variable and English proficiency is an independent variable.The survey designed a questionnaire in four different categories and they were distributed among 364 participants out of 7200 people.Cronbach alpha has been calculated as 0.7125, which validates the overall survey.The result of our study indicates that there was a strong correlation between these two variables (r=0.88Sig.= 0.01), which means as student get more familiar with English language they will have better general information.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207