Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aiming to evaluate dictation texts of A2 level Syrian students is carried out with 19 students learningTurkish in university, 7 female and 12 male, whose age range between 20-24. In this qualitative pattern study,dictation papers written by students were considered as data collection tool. The book of Forsa from Omer Seyfettinwas utilized in the study. Texts dictated by the researcher were written down by the students and resulting researchdata was analyzed in various aspects. In the study lasting 4 weeks; on 1st week a text of 117 words consisting of 3paragraphs, on 2nd week a text of 121 words consisting of 4 paragraphs, on 3rd week a text of 92 words consisting of2 paragraphs and on 4th week a text of 152 words consisting of 3 paragraphs was worked on. To minimize themistakes, resarch data was inspected twice. In the end of the study, it was found that students were completingdictation practices with an increasing pace, the amount of correct words written by the students was higher thanexpected, dictation practice accelerated students’ writing swiftness and students developed their writing skills. Alsoin the research, it was observed that students fell short of writing Arabic-rooted words in dictation texts, on thecontrary to the expectations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".