Use of English Vocabulary Learning Strategies by Thai Tertiary-Level Students in Relation to Fields of Study and Language-Learning Experiences
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
The present study was intended to examine the effects of 1) fields of study (arts, business and science-oriented); and 2) language-learning experiences (whether limited or non-limited to formal classroom instructions) on the use of VLSs among Thai tertiary-level students. The participants were 905 Thai EFL students studying in the Northeast of Thailand. The VLS questionnaire was employed for data collection. Descriptive statistics, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and the chi-square tests were performed for data analysis. The results revealed that fields of study and prior language-learning experiences affected the students’ overall VLS use, use of VLSs by the category and the individual strategy levels. The variation patterns of students’ VLS use were found in relation to the two variables.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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