Can the Essential Lexicon of Geology be Appropriately Represented in an Intuitively Written EAP Module?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to find out to what extent an intuitively developed ESP module for Science majors, taught at Sultan Qaboos University is appropriately written in terms of lexicon when compared to a core Geology textbook. The module was developed based on key topics which appeared in the Geology textbook. This study will only be evaluating vocabulary and will not be looking at other aspects of material evaluation. The digitized pages of the Module (LANC 2050) and the Essentials of Geology Textbook were loaded into the Software of WordSmith 5.0 for analysis. The results revealed low percentage word coverage in the module as compared with the limited pedagogical word list that was developed for Geology. In addition, the high density and low consistency ratios for the module as compared to the textbook indicated the compactness of the module for teaching purposes. A very low percentage of the technical words that were related to Geology was discovered in the Module (LANC 2050).
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".