Text Book Evaluation: A Retrospective Study
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
The purpose of this survey study was to assess the suitability of the textbook “Summit 2B” for Undergraduate University Students (UUSs) based on two criteria, i.e. subject matter and vocabulary/structure. The study conducted at Tabriz Islamic Azad University and Urmia Jahad Daneshgahi. The participants of the study were 150 including 10 instructors (8 males and 2 females) and 140 students (60 males and 80 females). Two means were used to collect quantitative and qualitative data. First, checklist adopted from Doaud & CelceMurcia (1979) was given to both instructors and students and the obtained data were analyzed by using SPSS software. Second, instructors were interviewed individually to answer the open-ended questions prepared by researchers. The results of the study revealed that the textbook “Summit 2B” is suitable for UUSs based on the instructors’ and students’ points of views. The findings have implications for ELT material developers, designers, and also for teachers in choosing the proper textbooks in their teaching process.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it