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
04–218 Barrette, Catherine (Wayne State U., USA). An analysis of foreign language achievement test drafts . Foreign Language Annals (New York, USA), 37 , 1 (2004), 58–70. 04–219 Cho, 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. 04–220 Cumming, 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. 04–221 Pae, 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. 04–222 Penny, 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. 04–223 Snellings, 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. 04–224 Stricker, 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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