MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2372882521

A brief comment on the patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom

2008· article· en· W2372882521 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sheng Hong-mei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hubei Normal University · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrective feedbackPreferencePsychologyRelation (database)Computer scienceSecond languageLinguisticsCognitive psychologyMathematics educationDatabaseMathematicsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Panova and Lyster are the professors of McGill University in Canada.The database of their research consists of 10 hours of transcribed interaction,coded in accordance with the categories identified in Lyster and Panova's(1977)model of corrective discourse.The results reveal a clear preference for implicit types of reformulative feedback,namely,recasts and translation,leaving little opportunity for other feedback types that encourage learner-generated repair.Consequently,rates of learner uptake and immediate repair of error are low in this classroom.These results are discussed in relation to the hypothesis that L2 learners may benefit more from retrieval and production processes than from only hearing target forms in the input.

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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hubei Normal UniversitySame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207