MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613581942 · doi:10.1075/itl.168.1.02web

The updated Vocabulary Levels Test

2017· article· en· W2613581942 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart Webb, Yosuke Sasao, Oliver James Ballance

Bibliographic record

VenueITL Review of Applied Linguistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocabularyTest (biology)Word (group theory)Natural language processingCocaQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyVocabulary developmentLinguisticsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Vocabulary Levels Test ( Nation, 1983 ; Schmitt, Schmitt, & Clapham, 2001 ) indicates the word frequency level that should be used to select words for learning. The present study involves the development and validation of two new forms of the test. The new forms consist of five levels measuring knowledge of vocabulary at the 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, and 5000 levels. Items for the tests were sourced from Nation’s (2012) BNC/COCA word lists. The research involved first identifying quality items using the data from 1,463 test takers to create two equivalent forms, and then evaluating the forms with the data from a further 250 test takers. This study also makes an initial attempt to validate the new forms using Messick’s ( 1989 , 1995 ) validity framework.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.007

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations354
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueITL Review of Applied LinguisticsSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207