MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886477612 · doi:10.5539/elt.v11n9p41

The Need Analysis of Maritime English Learning Materials for Nautical Students of Maritime Academy in Indonesia Based on STCW’2010 Curriculum

2018· article· en· W2886477612 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
I Wy Dirgeyasa

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnglish Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPort (circuit theory)CurriculumNonprobability samplingPsychologySurvey researchEngineeringMathematics educationMedical educationPedagogySociologyApplied psychologyMechanical engineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was aimed to investigate the Maritime English learning materials needed by the students of nautical department of Maritime Academy in Indonesia based in STCW’2010 curriculum. The participants of the research were the seafarers, the port authorities, the shipping business employees, the English lecturers, and the cadets of Maritime Academy. They were totally about 48 participants. They were selected by using purposive random sampling technique. There were three types of instruments for collecting data those were questionaire, documentary sheet, and interview. The results of the study shows that 1) there were three basic leaning materials categories of Maritime English namely a) the nautical contents, b) language skills, and c) languistic features and 2) the level of needs of those materials were different from categories to another categories and within categories.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicEnglish Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207