En búsqueda de elementos definitorios para el término competencia comunicativa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen:
 En el ámbito de la enseñanza y aprendizaje de español, hay un documento que orienta específicamente la enseñanza de español como lengua extranjera (en adelante ELE): el Plan Curricular del Instituto Cervantes (PCIC). Entre los distintos públicos a los cuales el documento se dirige, están los profesores de ELE. Para adoptar la propuesta del PCIC y seguir las orientaciones fornecidas, el profesor de ELE necesita comprender los términos presentes en el documento. El objetivo de este trabajo es determinar si, en el PCIC, hay contextos definitorios lo suficiente claros para que el profesor de ELE comprenda el término competencia comunicativa. El PCIC surgió a partir de otro documento: el Marco Común Europeo de Referencia para las Lenguas (MCER). En razón de eso, este documento también será objeto de análisis. La metodología empleada consiste de tres etapas: 1) compilación del corpus; 2) análisis de los contextos definitorios, a través del software AntConc; y 3) redacción de posibles definiciones.
 Abstract:
 In teaching and learning Spanish, there is a document that specifically directs the teaching and learning of Spanish as a foreign language (hereinafter SFL): the Plan Curricular del Instituto Cervantes (PCIC). Among the audiences to whom the document is directed, are the SFL teachers. To adopt the proposal of the PCIC and follow the guidance provided, the teacher of SFL needs to understand the terms in the document. The objective of this study is to determine whether, in PCIC, there are clear definitory contexts enough that the teacher of SFL understand the term communicative competence. PCIC is based on another document: Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). For this reason we will take this document into account. The methodology consists of three steps: 1) compilation of the corpus; 2) analysis of definitory contexts through AntConc software; and 3) drafting of possible settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".