MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906954116 · doi:10.3968/8167

The Construction of Controlled English Writing Based on Register Theory

2016· article· en· W2906954116 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoxia Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegister (sociolinguistics)LinguisticsComputer scienceVocabularyGrammarSystemic functional grammarEnglish grammarPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It’s believed that language is produced in the situation by systemic-functional linguists. Language varies with situations, which produce different registers. By analyzing different situations, register theory describes and interprets linguistic changes and varieties. As a significant output activity, English writing comprehensively reflects English proficiency of EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners, for it is not only associated with vocabulary, grammar and sentences, but also English thinking pattern and situations, etc. Register theory is of guiding significance for English writing. The paper puts forward the controlled English writing mode as both intelligent and feasible solutions from the perspectives of register theory, hoping to improve the efficiency of English writing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207