MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979056522 · doi:10.18806/tesl.v36i1.1308

Sitting at 6.5: Problematizing IELTS and Admissions to Canadian Universities

2019· article· en· W2979056522 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Jennifer J. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueTESL Canada Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversity of Ontario Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyCurriculumLibrary sciencePedagogyPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International English Language Testing System (IELTS) standardized English language proficiency (ELP) exam is widely accepted proof of ELP at Canadian universities. The majority of Canadian universities set very similar IELTS cut scores for admission; however, these differ from the IELTS-recommended minimum cut scores. The use of the IELTS exam as an admission tool is not unproblematic, with debates around where to set cut scores, the interplay of political and administrative concerns in setting admissions criteria, and the correlation between cut scores and student academic success. As well, the issue of essential academic skills and literacies and their relationship to the exam, curricula, and student academic success figure in the broader discussion around the IELTS exam and its use in Canadian higher education. L’évaluation standardisée des compétences linguistiques en anglais (ELP) du Système international de tests de la langue anglaise (IELTS) est largement reconnue comme preuve de compétence en anglais dans les universités canadiennes. La majorité d’entre elles établissent des notes de passage IELTS très semblables pour l’admission, mais celles-ci diffèrent des notes de passage minimales recommandées par l’IELTS. L’utilisation de l’examen IELTS comme outil d’admission n’est pas sans problèmes en raison des débats dont font l’objet la hauteur des notes de passage, l’interaction des préoccupations politiques et administratives qui entrent en jeu lors de l’établissement des critères d’admission, et la corrélation qui existe entre les notes de passage et la réussite académique des étudiantes et étudiants. La question des compétences et littératies académiques essentielles et de leur relation avec les examens, les programmes d’études et la réussite académique des étudiantes et étudiants entre elle aussi en ligne de compte dans le débat plus large qui porte sur l’examen IELTS et son utilisation dans l’enseignement supérieur au Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0200.005
Scholarly communication0.0160.005
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTESL Canada JournalSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207