On Text Interpretation, Summary Production, and Pragmatic Fatigue in EAP Written Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intent of this interdiscursive endeavor is to argue that EAP text interpretation (reading) and production (writing) can be effectively integrated through the task of summary writing (SW), which academically-oriented students must be able to perform. A discourse-level error analysis enabled us to focus on various features of the summaries which, taken together, indicate how well the (SW) class students had mastered both the goals of text interpretation and the conventions of summary writing, the identification of superordinate and subordinate points, the inclusion of an opening statement of the gist of the primary text, explicit reference to the primary author and text, and successful paraphrasing and representation of substantial claims without pragmatic failure or cross-cultural fatigue. It is a pragmatic feasibility to teach EAP students to be discourse analysts to the extent required by this discourse relevant task, and by learning to do such analysis, they can, in psycholinguistic coinage, integrate formative techniques of comprehension by production and summative techniques of production by comprehension.
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 | 0.099 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".