MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226157581 · doi:10.5430/elr.v11n1p20

A Case Study of Error Analysis in Mexican EFL Middle School Students

2022· article· en· W4226157581 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Otoniel Serrano de Santiago, Juan Manuel Velazquez Recendez, Gabriel De Ávila Sifuentes, Lizzete Gabriela Acosta Cruz, Martha Alicia Méndez Murillo

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Methods and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovertCorrectnessVariety (cybernetics)Interpretation (philosophy)Mathematics educationContext (archaeology)Subject (documents)Computer sciencePsychologyForeign languageTask (project management)LinguisticsArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageEngineeringHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study intended to examine written errors made by 9th-grade students at a representative middle school at Zacatecas, Mexico. As an essential curricular subject, English as a foreign language is the target for this research due to the variety of errors committed by students when they perform a writing task. The analyzed variables were covert errors (interpretation), overt errors (interpretation), correctness deviation, and appropriateness deviation. Participants were selected due to their proficiency level in English and the background on how they reached the expected level. Students’ productions were taken as specific samples; the aim was to highlight errors according to Corder’s classification. Results showed certain mistakes were prevalent, which is helpful for teachers to decide what to tackle when programming classes and overall to be fully aware of students’ processes to develop EFL in a particular context.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.451
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.141 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Linguistics ResearchSame topicEducational Methods and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207