MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2204570674

Error Analysis on English Writing of Chinese Mongolian Students Based on Automated Scoring System

2015· article· en· W2204570674 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lili Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Natural language processingError analysisScoring systemComposition (language)Artificial intelligenceMathematics educationLinguisticsPsychologyProgramming languageMathematicsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Corpus plays an important role in English writing. Corpus can provide students with rich authentic materials. The automated scoring system which is set up based on the use of corpus, such as the automated scoring system of Ju Ku, can grade the composition and make an analysis of students’ English writing to help them correct their writing errors. In this paper, an investigation of the writing problems of Mongolian students is carried out to make an analysis of the errors that students are easy to make in an attempt to improve Mongolian students’ writing abilities.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.365 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicEducational Technology and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207