Distribution of Articles in Malaysian Secondary School English Language Textbooks
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
This paper reports the results of a corpus-based study on English grammar articles presented in the Malaysian Form 1 to Form 5 English Language textbooks. The study aimed to find out the distribution patterns of the articles and the distributions of their colligation patterns in the secondary school English Language textbooks. The findings showed that all the three articles (a, an, the) are presented in all the five English Language textbooks and that their frequency of occurrences has an increasing trend from Form 1 to Form 5. However, the distributions of the colligation patterns of the articles showed inconsistency from one form to another. Some colligation patterns were over-emphasized while others were neglected in the English language textbooks. This study indicates that a textbook corpus can be useful in analyzing the presentation of grammatical structures (articles, in the case of this research). The findings can provide guidance to teachers to improve their pedagogical practices in the teaching of articles and to cater to the weaknesses of the presentation of articles in the textbooks.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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