MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275764942 · doi:10.1017/s0261444815000245

Tutorial computer-assisted language learning

2015· article· en· W2275764942 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Teaching · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineLanguage acquisitionCognitive scienceComputer scienceComprehension approachProcess (computing)Focus (optics)LinguisticsPsychologyMathematics educationArtificial intelligenceNatural languageProgramming languagePhilosophyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

‘Sometimes maligned for its allegedly behaviorist connotations but critical for success in many fields from music to sport to mathematics and language learning, practice is undergoing something of a revival in the applied linguistics literature’ (Long & Richards 2007, p. xi). This research timeline provides a systematic overview of the contributions of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) to the role, nature, and development of individual practice in language learning. We focus on written language practice in Tutorial CALL, corrective feedback and language awareness-raising in Intelligent CALL (ICALL), and individualization of the learning process through tailoring of learning sequences and contingent guidance.

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 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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.240 · 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