MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2928963884 · doi:10.5539/elt.v12n5p55

The Vocabulary Knowledge of Saudi EFL Tertiary Students

2019· article· en· W2928963884 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocabularyPsychologyActive listeningReading (process)Tertiary levelMathematics educationTest (biology)English vocabularyQuality (philosophy)Vocabulary developmentLinguisticsTeaching methodCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the vocabulary knowledge of 120 Saudi tertiary students in order to scrutinise their ability to communicate in English. A vocabulary test constructed by Nation and Beglar (2007) was utilised in the study. The findings revealed that the mean vocabulary size of Saudi EFL tertiary students was roughly 3000 words. Nevertheless, most of the participants achieved low scores in the vocabulary low frequency levels. Some participants were unable to answer any item correctly in these low and mid frequency levels. This suggests that while those students might be able to communicate at a basic level, dealing with reading simplified texts and comprehending listening materials, they may struggle with reading authentic texts, producing a high quality of writing and watching English TV programmes and films.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.306 · 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