MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774524497 · doi:10.5539/elt.v11n1p110

Quantitative Research in Systemic Functional Linguistics

2017· article· en· W2774524497 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qingshun He

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Education of Guangdong Province
KeywordsSystemic functional linguisticsApplied linguisticsLinguisticsQuantitative linguisticsPsychologyCompetence (human resources)Clinical linguisticsTheoretical linguisticsComputational linguisticsStructural linguisticsQualitative researchLanguage assessmentComputer scienceSociologyPhilosophySocial scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research of Systemic Functional Linguistics has been quite in-depth in both theory and practice. However, many linguists hold that Systemic Functional Linguistics has no hypothesis testing or experiments and its research is only qualitative. Analyses of the corpus, intelligent computing and language evolution on the ideological background of Systemic Functional Linguistics show that this theory focuses its research on language-in-use and is significantly quantitative in nature. It carries out both top-down and bottom-up approaches in specific studies and emphasizes on the combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods, the complementation of competence and performance data and the integration of manual and automatic operations.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.027
Scholarly communication0.0070.013
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207