MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909019525 · doi:10.3968/9208

Intra-Lingual and Inter-Lingual Errors in Chinese College Freshmen’s English Writing

2016· article· en· W2909019525 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Y Shao, Pei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentenceSyntaxError analysisLinguisticsPsychologyCollege EnglishChinaComputer scienceMathematics educationNatural language processingHistoryMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a statistical analysis was made on the errors in the freshmen’s English writing based on the English compositions collected from a Chinese 211 project university. The analytical result showed that there are mainly 13 types of errors in the English writing of China’s college freshmen, which can be categorized into “intra-lingual errors” and “inter-lingual errors”, and each of these two categories can be subdivided into “lexical errors” and “syntax errors”. Among them, the sentence inconsistency, errors in the articles, parts of speech errors or tense/voice errors take up the highest proportions. At the end, the inspirations from research results were introduced for English writing teaching.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.330 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207