The Iraqi EFL Learners’ Use of Permission, Obligation and Prohibition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims at specifying the different types of directives available in the literature about speech acts; showing their relationship; and investigating the ability of the Iraqi EFL learners to recognize and produce the aforementioned speech acts. To validate the hypotheses of the study, a test is used to measure the ability of the fourth year subjects, at Thi-Qar University, College of Education for humanities, to recognize and produce permission, obligation and prohibition. It is hypothesized that the Iraqi EFL learners’ performance at the recognition level is better than that at the production of permission, obligation and prohibition; their performance of permission at both the recognition and production levels is better than that of obligation and permission; they tend to use some specific linguistic forms which are characteristic of the types of directives. The study concludes that the subjects’ performance at the recognition and production levels do not reveal a moderate mastering of permission, obligation and prohibition. In spite of that, their recognition level is better than their production and they have weaknesses at the pragmatic level of the selected directives.
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.
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 | 0.021 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it