MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792307482 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v8n4p139

The Role of Learning Resource Centers at the Northern Border University in Increasing the Academic Achievement in English Language Courses

2018· article· en· W2792307482 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yaser Mohammad Al Sawy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityMathematics educationSample (material)Resource (disambiguation)English languageField (mathematics)PsychologyPedagogySociologyComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study aims at understanding the relationship between the use of IT applications in the Learning Resources Centers (henceforth, LRCs) at the university and increasing the academic achievement of the English language students at the Faculty of Education and Literature at the Northern Border University? The researcher relied on the research methodology of the field study, which allowed him to collect the views of a random sample of the English language learners at the university to measure and analyze the effectiveness of the use of IT within the LRCs. The study showed that the IT within the LRCs is one of the most important strategic resources at the level of educational institutions and the main factor in the development of its sectors. There is an interest from the Northern Border University on upgrading and supporting the IT infrastructure, especially in education for it is the basis for community development. A high proportion of English Language students at the university are keen on using and applying many of the technological learning media within the LRCs as a constitutive factor in understanding mental processes such as visualization, thinking, learning and creativity which is the first step towards knowledge and innovation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207