MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2062948090 · doi:10.5539/elt.v5n7p164

Exploring the Language Learning Needs across Different Levels: A Case for the Iranian Undergraduate and Postgraduate Genetics Students

2012· article· en· W2062948090 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fatemeh Abbasian Boroujeni, Saeed Ketabi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerceptionGraduate studentsMedical educationTest (biology)Minor (academic)Mathematics educationForeign languagePedagogyMedicineHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present research was conducted with the aim of examining the foreign language learning needs of graduate and postgraduate students of Genetics in Iran in order to help students to meet the growing present and emerging future language demands. The study was designed on a qualitative-quantitative survey basis using interviews and questionnaires which was administered to 35 undergraduate students, 18 postgraduate students, and 4 subject-specific instructors. To see whether the graduate and postgraduate students differed significantly in terms of their language needs, an independent sample t-test was used. Chi-square analysis was also conducted to examine the possible discrepancies across the perceived needs of the students and their parallel counterparts in the instructors' corpus. The findings of the study revealed some minor discrepancies with regard to the language needs and perceptions across different levels. The chi-square results also revealed very few differences between the students' and instructors' perceived needs.

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)0.005
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language Teaching→Same topicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning→French-language works237,207→