Is Chinese English Majors’ Tendency to Use Modal Sequences Better with the Passing of Their College Campus Time？
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
Based on the result of the trends of modal sequences in Chinese English majors’ argumentation, this research focuses on the relationship between English majors’ tendency to use modal sequences and their college campus time. The paper reveals that the tendency to use modal verbs is not related to their college campus time, and that epistemic and deontic modality to uses are not related to their college campus time, either. This study offers reference to the understanding of how Chinese students acquire modal verbs and gives suggestions for modal verb teaching which are the following: (1) We should bear in mind when compiling textbooks that more exposure to epistemic modal verbs with euphemism modality for students is needed in early senior high textbooks; (2) Native speakers’ tendency to use modal verbs should be explicitly clarified in class; (3) native speakers tend to use should be consciously presented both in and after class; (4) The proper pragmatic meaning of modal verbs, the basic value view and social philosophy of Anglo-American Culture involved as well as the differences in cultural tradition and value between East and West should be underlined in English modal verbs 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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