MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153483706 · doi:10.5430/elr.v1n1p104

The Relationship between Critical Thinking and L2 Grammatical and Lexical Knowledge

2012· article· en· W2153483706 on OpenAlex
Abbas Ali Zarei, Elham Haghgoo

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrammarVocabularyCritical thinkingPsychologyWatsonTest (biology)LinguisticsCorrelationMathematics educationNatural language processingComputer scienceMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study was conducted to investigate the relationship between critical thinking and L2 grammatical knowledge on the one hand, and the relationship between critical thinking and lexical knowledge on the other. To fulfill this objective, a 60-item vocabulary and grammar subtest of the TOEFL test and an 80–item Watson Glaser Critical Thinking questionnaire were distributed among 150 male and female Iranians studying English as a foreign language at Azad University in Takestan, Iran. Data were analyzed using Pearson correlation procedure. The result of data analysis indicated that the correlation between vocabulary and critical thinking was not statistically significant. The correlation between grammar and critical thinking was not statistically significant either, but there was a strong trend towards a positive relationship.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.448
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.448
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.260 · 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