MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519996937

How to Deal With Chinglish Problems Appeared in the English Writings by Vocational College Students

2016· article· en· W2519996937 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chunxiang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher education of social science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Ethnic Minorities and Relations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocational educationFiguringLinguisticsComputer scienceMathematics educationSociologyPsychologyPedagogyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chinglish is one of the common problems appeared in the English writings by vocational college students. There is no logic in some of the Chinglish sentences, not mention the meanings. Although there are no grammatical mistakes in some Chinglish sentences, they still confuse the native-speakers. Chinglish hinders the improvement of English writing and might mislead the students if they are not corrected in time. The aim of this essay is to improve English writing of vocational college students by analyzing the reasons and figuring out the solutions.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher education of social scienceSame topicChina's Ethnic Minorities and RelationsFrench-language works237,207