The Effect of Individual Differences on Learners’ Translation Belief in EFL Learning
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 study investigated learners’ beliefs about translation and the effect of two variables of individual differences, risk taking and tolerance of ambiguity, on the mentioned variable. The participants of the study were 120 EFL learners homogenized through Oxford Placement Test. They received three questionnaires on translation belief, risk-taking and ambiguity tolerance whose validation was established and they were all in Likert-scale. Chi-square analysis reveals that participants had positive belief about translation. In order to determine the effect of risk taking on translation belief and an independent samples t-test was run which reveals negative effect of risk-taking on translation belief. In other words, risk-averse learners were found to have positive belief about translation. On the other hand, risk-takers were found to have negative belief about translation. Analysis of t-test on the effect of ambiguity tolerance on translation belief reveals that this individual characteristic had no effect on learner’s translation belief.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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