MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138224746 · doi:10.5539/elt.v14n4p34

Textbook Digitization: A Case Study of English Textbooks in China

2021· article· en· W3138224746 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiangning Li

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHigher Education and Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningVariety (cybernetics)Teaching methodMathematics educationInterpretation (philosophy)PsychologyChinaReading (process)Promotion (chess)DigitizationContent analysisPedagogySociologyLinguisticsComputer scienceSocial sciencePolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The continuous promotion of e-teaching materials in the international education community prompted the Chinese government to incorporate the use of e-teaching materials in its educational system in 2010. This article introduces the different definitions of e-teaching materials in Chinese and international academia, analyzes the benefits and shortcomings of e-teaching materials by using the 2019 version of the English textbook for high school from The People’s Education Press. The study employs content analysis to provide an in-depth interpretation of how task setting in three textbooks reflects an inclination towards e-teaching materials from four aspects: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Randomly selected units in three textbooks are used to discuss how digital elements contribute to the textbooks and to the emergence of the e-learning trend. Although China’s textbooks are not fully digitalized, a variety of teaching contexts, resources, and content connotations that appear in existing textbooks indicate that e-learning is now an essential element in Chinese English-learning textbooks.

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)0.011
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicHigher Education and Teaching MethodsFrench-language works237,207