Bibliographic record
Abstract
04–218Barrette, Catherine (Wayne State U., USA). An analysis of foreign language achievement test drafts. Foreign Language Annals (New York, USA), 37, 1 (2004), 58–70. 04–219Cho, Yeonsuk (Ballard & Tighe, California, USA; Email: ycho@ballard-tighe.com ) Assessing writing: are we bound by only one method?Assessing Writing (New York, USA), 8, 3 (2003), 165–91. 04–220Cumming, Alister (U. of Toronto, Canada; Email: acumming@oise.utoronto.ca ). Grant, Leslie, Mulcahy-Ernt, Patricia and Powers, Donald E. A teacher-verification study of speaking and writing prototype tasks for a new TOEFL. Language Testing (London, UK), 21, 2 (2004), 107–45. 04–221Pae, Tae-Il (Yeungnam U., Republic of Korea; Email: paet@gwm.sc.edu ). Gender effect on reading comprehension with Korean EFL learners. System (Oxford, UK), 32 (2004), 265–81. 04–222Penny, James A. (Castle Worldwide Inc., North Carolina, USA; Email: jpenny@castleworldwide.com ). Reading high stakes writing samples: my life as a reader. Assessing Writing (New York, USA), 8, 3 (2003), 192–215. 04–223Snellings, Patrick and Van Gelderen, Amos (U. of Amsterdam, Holland) and de Glopper, Kees. Validating a test of second language written lexical retrieval: a new measure of fluency in written language production. Language Testing (London, UK), 21, 2 (2004), 174–201. 04–224Stricker, J. Lawrence (Educational Testing Service, USA). The performance of native speakers of English and ESL speakers on the computer-based TOEFL and GRE general test. Language Testing (London, UK), 21, 2 (2004), 146–73.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.474 | 0.347 |
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".