English for Academic Purposes: A New Perspective from Multiple Literacies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English for Academic Purposes (EAP) has now become a popular term, due to English becoming the global languageof academia, the workplace, and higher education. At the same time, EAP has, since its creation, been influenced bythe language theories of general language teaching and literacy movements. However, its concepts and approachescan, at times, appear too various for learners and practitioners to identify which course of action to follow,particularly when the inexperienced face a ‘jungle of jargon’. EAP researchers have been trying to define EAP,however, they are never in agreement. Therefore, a definition of EAP can prove problematic. This research willextract the commonality of the popular EAP approaches before placing them into a broader context of EAPdevelopment, language teaching and literacy history, and the changing history of the educational landscape; it willcritically thematize the current EAP theories and aims in order to further examine the nature of EAP as multipleliteracies, including academic literacy, disciplinary cultural literacy, critical literacy and digital literacy.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".