English Passive Alternation by Saudi EFL Students
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
This study examines Saudi Arabian EFL students in relation to alternating, and non-alternating passive verbs. This study also considers factors related to the mastering of alternating / non-alternating verbs by (40) Saudi student participants related to correct/incorrect usage of alternating / non-alternating verbs by Saudi Arabian EFL student participants in a Grammaticality Judgment Task (GJT). The results of this study demonstrate that participants scored a satisfactory mean score of correct answers in the usage of alternating verbs (79%). On the other hand, this study demonstrates that the (40) Saudi EFL student participants achieved a total mean score of (48%) for non-alternation verbs. This study then considers possible causes for correct usage of alternating verbs and proposes to identify elements which relate to correct transfer by the (40) Saudi EFL student participants. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that the over-generalizing of the passivisation rule for verbs that do not alternate resulted in improper usage. Lastly, this study indicates that a similarity between the construction of the non-causative and passive construction gives rise to improper understanding of English Passive Alternation by Saudi EFL student participants.
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 | 0.113 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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