MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006114436 · doi:10.26522/brocked.v29i1.790

Innovative Language Teaching and Learning at University: Integrating Informal Learning into Formal Language Education

2020· article· en· W3006114436 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Min Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock Education Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformal learningPolyglotComputer scienceFeelingLanguage acquisitionTheme (computing)Variety (cybernetics)PedagogySection (typography)Language educationSociologyMathematics educationWorld Wide WebPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The edited book Innovative Language Teaching and Learning at University: Integrating Informal Learning into Formal Language Education, built on the 2017 Innovative Language Teaching and Learning at University conference (InnoConf), collected chapters with the theme: “Integrating informal learning into formal language education” (p. 3). Focusing on the exploration of innovative technologies for the purpose of language learning, the editors present a variety of approaches, including online courses, Wikipedia, social networking apps, online learning platforms, game-based tasks, video-based support, and Twitter. Based on the aims of the articles, the editors organized the chapters into two sections, with the first section addressing users’ feelings about these technologies and the second section addressing users’ evaluations of the technologies. The third section is an interview between the editor Tita Beaven and Richard Simcott, a founder of the Polyglot Conference. The interview emphasizes the importance of learning languages in informal ways.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0140.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock Education JournalSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207