Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Enhance the Semantics of English at: An Experimental Study (Baghdad University)
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 current study is quantitative by nature; it cognitively studies the polysemous network of the English preposition at and its various meanings. The results of the pre-test conducted by the researcher have tentatively revealed that Iraqi second language (L2) learners fall in the perplexity because of the multi-usages of this preposition. This incomprehensive view of the preposition at motivates the researcher to analyze this preposition semantically according to insights from cognitive linguistics (CL) that was developed by Evans and Tyler (2003). Accordingly, sixty-eight second year university students participated in this experimental study. The pre-test and post-test data were analyzed using SPSS. Results have shown the following: First, a progress of more than (0.05) has been detected as far as students' understanding of the multiple usages of the preposition at. Second, the results of the questionnaire have shown a prominent positive change in the students' attitude toward CL approach. Third, the main source of difficulty regarding the diversity in the semantics of the preposition at has been displayed. Fourth, CL as an approach has proven its effectiveness in accurately comprehending of the semantics of the English preposition at.
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 | 0.001 | 0.060 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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