MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521110206 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v6n5p121

A Study on Science Students’ Understanding of Three Lemmas: State Verb, Action Verb and Noun in the State Run Colleges in Pakistan

2016· article· en· W2521110206 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhamma Imran, Tahira Asgher, Mamuna Ghani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNounVerbLemma (botany)LinguisticsAction (physics)GrammarPsychologyComputer scienceTest (biology)Natural language processingMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

English main verbs are classified as stative and dynamic. At first, this paper deals with the analysis of stative verbs, highlights their true nature and function and illustrates the concept of spontaneity within the state verbs. Secondly, it expounds how the term ‘lemma’ helps in sorting out the same words representing different parts of speech. Finally, it reports on the level of the science students’ competency in the use of state verbs, action verbs and nouns. For this purpose, 300 science students of intermediate level were selected as participants for the present study. A language proficiency test was conducted to collect data. The results revealed that majority of the students had scanty understanding of nouns and state verbs but their recognition of action verbs had been of average level. Some suggestions for improved pedagogy in teaching English grammar have been suggested on the basis of these findings.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207