MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W28605568 · doi:10.1002/mp.12405

アカデミックライティングにおける「分かりにくさ」の要因は何か?--意見文の分析を通じた一考察

2011· article· ja· W28605568 on OpenAlexfundno aff
良一 堤

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Entomology and Zoology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageja
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

学部レベルの留学生に必要なアカデミックジャパニーズに関して,ライティング能力の評価や測定に関する研究は,喫緊の課題である。本稿では,日本語非母語話者の作文をめぐって,大学教員を対象として行った評価調査の概要を報告する。また,その調査結果に基づき,日本語非母語話者である留学生によって執筆された意見文の分かりにくさの要因についての考察を行う。その結果として,「分かりにくさ」の一端を具体的に明らかにする。最後に,結論として,意見文においては,主張文とその根拠となる事実文の適切な構成がなされているか否かが,意見文全体への評価を決定付けていることを主張する。

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Entomology and ZoologySame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207