MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760334374 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p88

Are Prospective English Teachers Linguistically Intelligent?

2017· article· en· W2760334374 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kadir Vefa Tezel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheory of multiple intelligencesPsychologyMathematics educationEnglish languageSelection (genetic algorithm)Longitudinal studyPoint (geometry)LinguisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Language is normally associated with linguistic capabilities of individuals. In the theory of multiple intelligences, language is considered to be related primarily to linguistic intelligence. Using the theory of Multiple Intelligences as its starting point, this descriptive survey study investigated to what extent prospective English teachers’ high school education contributed to the development of linguistic intelligence which is essential for language teachers. The data were collected, using the Teele Inventory of Multiple Intelligences. The results showed that of the seven intelligences in the inventory, linguistic intelligence was not the most dominant intelligence of the participants. Variables such as the type of high school the students graduated from, the number of years of English learning, and gender did not have any effect on the linguistic intelligence scores of prospective English teachers either. The findings indicate that a change in the criteria of selection needs to be made in admitting prospective language teachers to universities.

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)0.011
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.379 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicEmotional Intelligence and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207