MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2222111835

The Application of Corpus in English Writing and Its Influences

2016· article· en· W2222111835 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lili Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in sociology of science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorpus linguisticsComputer scienceSection (typography)Natural language processingStrengths and weaknessesArtificial intelligenceText corpusLinguisticsPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corpus plays a very important role in English teaching and learning. This paper undertakes an empirical study on the errors made by Mongolian learners in their English writing based on the resources in the corpus. The paper first gives a brief introduction of corpus, and then gives illustration about the relevant theory of the research. Afterwards, with the purpose of finding out the rules of these errors and exploring the causes of them, a study is carried out based on the automated scoring system provided by corpus. In the next section, a discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of corpus is made hoping to improve the service of corpus. Finally, the author attempts to make predictions about the trends of the corpus-based approach to English writing.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.013
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.363 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in sociology of scienceSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207