Investigating and Analyzing ESP College Students’ Errors in Using Synonyms
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
This study aims to investigate and analyze the errors of English for specific purposes college students in using synonyms. It also discovers the difficulties that faced ESP students in using synonyms. A descriptive-analytical method was used in this study. The population of the study were (60) ESP college students from the college of Political Sciences at Al-Nahrain University, in the academic year 2018–2019. The sample consists of (50) ESP for college students, which were chosen randomly. Data for the study were collected from the written test which consisted of different five questions and each question contains five items, so the total items were 25. The findings of the study showed the importance of error analysis for the learners and teachers; it can provide a good methodology for investigating learners’ errors in English. The study discovered that the most occurred errors are due to their limited knowledge of acquisition of vocabulary especially for learners who study English for specific purposes. The insufficient of vocabulary knowledge causes many difficulties for learners in choosing the correct synonyms and, hence, they committed errors which prevent their advance in learning natural English. Finally, the study concludes with some recommendations for further research.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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