Towards a better understanding of an academic success center in an EMI context
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 project aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an academic success center at a Japanese public university, in terms of the reciprocal learning that took place during academic writing and reading tutorials and the academic achievement of tutees. Using a multi-method design, the researchers analyzed feedback data from tutors and tutees, and Grade Point Averages (GPA) of tutees and non-users.Questionnaire feedback from both peer tutors and tutees was analysed to understand what learning took place during sessions . The results from one semester of data collection and examples of learning shared by tutors and tutees on the feedback forms are explained. Additionally, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare GPA at the beginning and end of the semester, along with changes in GPA of tutees and non-users. This paper aims tocontribute to better understanding the role for academic success centers, especially in relation to the growing context of English-medium instruction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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