MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Querying a Static and Dynamic Learner Corpus

2018· book-chapter· en· W2800473454 on OpenAlexaff
Trude Heift, Catherine Caws

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTUTORComputer scienceGermanSample (material)Variety (cybernetics)Process (computing)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceMultimediaLinguisticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter discusses the cyclical process of collecting and recycling learner data within the E-Tutor CALL system and presents a study on student usage of its data-driven learning (DDL) tool. E-Tutor consists of a static and dynamic learner corpus for L2 learners of German. The static learner corpus has been constructed from approximately 5000 learners who used the system over a period of five years. These learners provided millions of submissions from a variety of activity types. In addition, all concurrent E-Tutor users contribute data to a dynamic corpus, which allows them to compare and examine their ongoing system submissions to those contained in the static corpus. The authors conducted a study with 84 learners and recorded their interaction with the DDL tool of E-Tutor over one semester. Study results on student usage suggest that investigating sample input of a large, unknown user group might be less informative and of less interest to language learners than their own data. For the DDL tool to be useful for all proficiency levels, training and scaffolding must also be provided.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in educational technologies and instructional design book seriesSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207