Bibliographic record
Abstract
04–403 Ammon, Ulrich. Sprachenpolitik in Europa- unter dem vorrangigen Aspekt von Deutsch als Fremdsprache (2). [Policy towards languages in Europe with special reference to German as a foreign language (2)]. Deutsch als Fremdsprache (Leipzig, Germany), 41 (2004), 3–10. 04–404 Bray, Gayle Babbitt (U. of Iowa, USA; Email: gayle-bray@uiowa.edu ), Pascarella, Ernest T. and Pierson, Christopher T. Postsecondary education and some dimensions of literacy development: An exploration of longitudinal evidence. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, USA), 39, 3 (2004), 306–330. 04–405 Dufon, Margaret A. (California State U., USA). Producing a video for teaching pragmatics in the second or foreign language. Prospect (Sydney, Australia), 19, 1 (2004), 65–83. 04–406 Intachakra, S. (Thammasat U., Thailand; Email: songthama@tu.ac.th ). Contrastive pragmatics and language teaching: apologies and thanks in English and Thai. RELC Journal (Singapore), 35, 1 (2004), 37–62. 04–407 Kerkes, Julie (California State U., Los Angeles, USA). Preparing ESL learners for self-presentation in institutional settings outside the classroom. Prospect (Sydney, Australia), 19, 1 (2004), 22–46. 04–408 Kozlova, Iryna (Georgia State U., USA). Can you complain? Cross-cultural comparison of indirect complaints in Russian and American English. Prospect (Sydney, Australia), 19, 1 (2004), 84–105. 04–409 McLean, Terence (Grant MacEwan College, Edmonton, Canada; Email: mcleanky@telusplanet.net ). Giving students a fighting chance: pragmatics in the language classroom. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada (Barnaby, Canada), 21, 2 (2004), 72–92. 04–410 Newton, Jonathan (Victoria U. of Wellington, New Zealand). Face-threatening talk on the factory floor: using authentic workplace interactions in language teaching. Prospect (Sydney, Australia), 19, 1 (2004), 47–64. 04–411 Nichols, Susan (U. of South Australia). Literacy learning and children's social agendas in the school entry classroom. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy (Norwood, Australia), 27, 2 (2004), 101–113. 04–412 Yates, Lynda (La Trobe U., Australia). The ‘secret rules of language‘: tackling pragmatics in the classroom. Prospect (Sydney, Australia), 19, 1 (2004), 3–20.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.145 | 0.046 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".