Bibliographic record
Abstract
03–174Andrews, Stephen (U. of Hong Kong SAR, China; Email: sandrews@hkucc.hku.hk ), Fullilove, John and Wong, Yama. Targeting washback – a case-study. System (Oxford, UK), 30, 2 (2002), 207–23. 03–175Bourguignon, Claire (Université du Havre, France). L'importance de la représentation dans l'activité d'évaluation de la communication langagière: application au project europoliglot. [The importance of representation patterns in assessing linguistic communication: A multi-language application – project EUROPOLIGLOT.] Les Cahiers de l'APLIUT (Grenoble, France), 21, 2 (2001), 62–78. 03–176Esmaeili, Hameed. Integrated reading and writing tasks and ESL students' reading and writing performance in an English language test. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes (Toronto, Ont.), 58, 4 (2002), 599–622. 03–177Ginther, April (Purdue U., USA; Email: aginther@purdue.edu ). Context and content visuals and performance on listening comprehension stimuli. Language Testing (London, UK), 19, 2 (2002), 133–67. 03–178Godev, Concepción B. (U. of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA), Martinez-Gibson, Elizabeth A. and Toris, Carol C. M. Foreign language reading comprehension test: L1 versus L2 in open-ended questions. Foreign Language Annals (New York, USA), 35, 2 (2002), 202–21. 03–179Goodfellow, Robin (Open U., Milton Keynes, UK; Email: r.goodfellow@open.ac.uk ), Lamy, Marie-Noëlle and Jones, Glyn. Assessing learners' writing using lexical frequency. ReCALL (Cambridge, UK), 14, 1 (2002), 133–45. 03–180Issac, Fabrice (Université Paris-Nord, France; Email: fabrice.issac@lli.univ-paris13.fr ) and Hû, Olivier. Formalism for evaluation: Feedback on learner knowledge representation. Computer Assisted Language Learning (Lisse, The Netherlands), 15, 2 (2002), 183–99. 03–181Kim, Duk-Ja (Hansung U., Seoul, Korea; Email: deog@hansung.ac.kr ) and Kyungmi, O. Washback on 12th grade English classes of the English tests within Korean University entrance exams. English Teaching (Korea), 57, 3 (2002), 303–31. 03–182Kobayashi, Miyoko (U. of Warwick, UK; Email: Miyoko.Kobayashi@warwick.ac.uk ). Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: Text organisation and response format. Language Testing (London, UK), 19, 2 (2002), 193–220. 03–183Major, Roy C. (Arizona State U., Tucson, USA), Fitzmaurice, Susan F., Bunta, Ferenc and Balasubramanian, Chandrika. The effects of nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly (Alexandria, VA, USA), 36, 2 (2002), 173–90. 03–184Meara, Paul, Jacobs, Gabriel and Rodgers, Catherine (U. of Wales Swansea, UK; Email: p.m.meara@swan.ac.uk ). Lexical signatures in foreign language free-form texts. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics (Leuven, Belgium), 135–136 (2002), 85–96. 03–185Myers, Marie J. (Queens U., Ontario, Canada; Email: myersmj@educ.queensu.ca ). Computer-assisted second language assessment: To the top of the pyramid. ReCALL (Cambridge, UK), 14, 1 (2002), 167–81. 03–186O'Loughlin, Kieran (The U. of Melbourne, Australia; Email: kjo@unimelb.edu.au ). The impact of gender in oral proficiency testing. Language Testing (London, UK), 19, 2 (2002), 169–92. 03–187Orr, Michael (The British Council, Valencia, Spain; Email: mike.orr@es.britcounc.org ). The FCE Speaking test: Using rater reports to help interpret test scores. System (Oxford, UK), 30, 2 (2002), 143–54. 03–188Patri, Mrudula (City U. of Hong Kong; Email: elpatri@cityu.edu.hk ). The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing (London, UK), 19, 2 (2002), 109–31. 03–189Song, Bailin and August, Bonne (City U. of New York, USA; Email: bsong@kbcc.cuny.edu ). Using portfolios to assess the writing of ESL students: A powerful alternative? Journal of Second Language Writing (Norwood, NJ, USA), 11, 1 (2002), 49–72. 03–190Wilhelm, Kim Hughes and Rivers, Marilyn (Southern Illinois U., USA). An audience approach to EAP writing assessment: Learners, teachers, outsiders. Applied Language Learning (Presidio of Monterey, CA, USA), 12, 2 (2001), 177–90. 03–191Yien, Liju (Nat. Lien Ho Inst. of Technology, Taiwan). Effective test-taking strategies on English tests: Implications from Taiwanese students. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics (Hong Kong), 6, 2 (2001), 22–43.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.309 | 0.246 |
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".