MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092968452 · doi:10.3968/11887

An Empirical Study on the Effectiveness of Multimedia Annotation to the News Listening Comprehension

2020· article· en· W3092968452 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qiangmei Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher education of social science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningListening comprehensionComprehensionComputer scienceCollege EnglishMainland ChinaEnglish languageTest (biology)Mathematics educationMultimediaLinguisticsPsychologyChinaCommunicationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the continuous progress of science and technology, computers are more widely used in English teaching. In most English classes, computer aided learning and teaching has become an indispensable part of classroom activities. On the other hand, enhancing language skills through multimedia technologies become one of the scholars’ concerns. English tests like College English Test (CET) is very popular among the Chinese mainland English learners, to whom the listening part is always the hardest section. Accordingly, how to improve their listening comprehension in the news section leaves us a hot debate in nowadays. For this purpose, through the investigation of how the news listening comprehension is subject to different modes of multimedia annotations, the paper tries to find out the correlation between the effectiveness of multimedia glossaries and listening comprehension of the Chinese mainland EFL learners and hopefully the study could inspire the language educators and other related professions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher education of social scienceSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207