Expanding academic vocabulary with an interactive on-line database
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
University students used a set of existing and purpose-built on-line tools for vocabulary learning in an experimental ESL course. The resources included concordance, dictionary, cloze-builder, hypertext, and a database with interactive self-quizzing feature (all freely available at www.lextutor.ca). The vocabulary targeted for learning consisted of (a) Coxhead's (2000) Academic Word List, a list of items that occur frequently in university textbooks, and (b) unfamiliar words students had met in academic texts and selected for entry into the class database. The suite of tools were designed to foster retention by engaging learners in deep processing, an aspect that is often described as missing in computer exercises for vocabulary learning. Database entries were examined to determine whether context sentences supported word meanings adequately and whether entered words reflected the unavailability of cognates in the various first languages of the participants. Pre- and post-treatment performance on tests of knowledge of words targeted for learning in the course were compared to establish learning gains. Regression analyses investigated connections between use of specific computer tools and gains.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it