Retrospects and Introspects of Researches on Listening Strategies at Home and Abroad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Listening strategies refer to thoughts or activities that language learners often use in the process of listening. Listening strategies are the vital branches of learning strategies, and as researches of learning strategies become a specialized research field, researches of listening strategies have spread to the aspects of meta-cognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, socialized and affective strategies, strategy-training, strategy-guiding, strategy-instruction etc. In recent years, with the continuous efforts of scholars at home and abroad, researches of listening strategies tend to be more elaborate in depth and length, which reflects on research contents, research fields, research methods, research subjects etc. In this paper, the authors have mainly made researches on the research status quo of English listening strategies at home and abroad and have given reflections on the research deficiencies. It is expected that we could improve both the learners’ listening proficiency and the strategy-instruction in EFL classrooms at home and abroad.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".