MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134278381 · doi:10.1177/0265532207083743

The key to success: English language testing in China

2008· article· en· W2134278381 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Testing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersMinistry of Education, IndiaMinistry of Earth Sciences
KeywordsLanguage assessmentChinaContext (archaeology)PsychologyEnglish languageTest (biology)LinguisticsTest of English as a Foreign LanguageLanguage proficiencyChinese languageMathematics educationHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The testing and examination history in China can be traced back to the imperial period nearly two thousand years ago. The existence of English language testing (tests), on the other hand, has a much shorter history. These English tests, developed and administered over the past 20 years, however, are taken by billions of learners of the English language in China. To many of these learners, doing well on these tests are the key to their academic success as well as the success of their life in general. The paper will first introduce major tests and examinations of English designed and administered in China, then provide an overview of the current research in language testing that has been conducted by Chinese researchers and published in Chinese academic journals over the past 10 years. This paper will focus on the discussion of the issues and concerns of language testing within the Chinese context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.345 · 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