Bibliographic record
Abstract
05–63Brantmeier, Cindy (Washington U, USA; cbrantme@artsci.wustl.edu ). Effects of reader's knowledge, text type, and test type on L1 and L2 reading comprehension in Spanish. The Modern Language Journal (Madison, Wl, USA) 89.1 (2005), 37–53. 05–64Fisher, R (U of Exeter, UK; r.j.fisher@exeter.ac.uk ). Teacher–child interaction in the teaching of reading: a review of research perspectives over twenty-five years. Journal of Research in Reading (Oxford, UK) 28.1 (2005), 15–27. 05–65Fukkink, Ruben G., Hulstijn, Jan & Simis, Annegien (U of Amsterdam, The Netherlands; R.G.Fukkink@uva.nl ). Does training in second-language word recognition skills affect reading comprehension? An experimental study. The Modern Language Journal (Madison, Wl, USA) 89.1 (2005), 54–75. 05–66Jewitt, Carey (Institute of Education, U of London), Jones, Ken & Kress, Gunther. English in classrooms: only write down what you need to know: annotation for what?English in Education (Sheffield, UK) 39.1 (2005), 5–18. 05–67Kapitze, C. & Bruce, B. C. (Brisbane, Australia; c.kapitzke@uq.edu.au ). The arobase in the libr@ry: new political economies of children's literature and literacies. Computers and Composition (New York, USA) 22.1 (2005), 69–78. 05–68Kress, Gunter (U of London, UK; g.kress@ioe.ac.uk ). Gains and losses: new forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition (New York, USA) 22.1 (2005), 5–22. 05–69McCarthey, Sarah J. & Earnest García, Georgia (U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA). English language learners' writing practices and attitudes. Written Communication (London, UK) 22.1 (2005), 36–75. 05–70Menon, Shailaja (U of Colorado, Boulder, USA; Shailaja.Menon@Colorado.edu ) & Hiebert, Elfrieda H. A comparison of first graders' reading with little books or literature-based basal anthologies. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, DE, USA) 40.1 (2005), 12–38. 05–71Petric B. (Central European U, Budapest, Hungary). Contrastive rhetoric in the writing classroom: a case study. English for Specific Purposes (Oxford, UK) 24.2 (2004), 213–228. 05–72Ramachandran, Subhadra (York U, Canada). Integrating new technologies into language teaching: two activities for an EAP classroom. TESL Canada Journal (Burnaby, Canada) 22.1 (2004), 79–89. 05–73Rollinson, P. ( paul.rollinson@uam.es ). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal (Oxford, UK) 59.1 (2005), 23–30. 05–74Rubin, Bella (Tel Aviv U, Israel; brubin@post.tau.ac.il ), Katznelson, Helen & Perpignan, Hadara. Learning for life: the potential of academic writing courses for individual EFL learners. System (Oxford, UK) 33.1 (2005), 17–27. 05–75Scherff, Lisa (U of Tennessee, USA) & Piazza, Carolyn. The more things change, the more they stay the same: a survey of high school students' writing experiences. Research in the Teaching of English (Urbana, IL USA) 39.3 (2005), 271–304. 05–76Schmidt, Claudia (Albert-Ludwig-U, Freiburg, Germany). Wörter lemen durch Lesen: eine empirische Untersuchung zum Strategieeinsatz des indirekten Lemens bei fortgeschrittenen japanischen DaF-Lernem/-innen [Learning words through reading. An empirical investigation into strategies of incidental learning-the case of Japanese advanced learners of German as a foreign language]. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen (Tübingen, Germany) 33 (2004), 72–82. 05–77Shapiro, Amy M. & Waters, Dusty L. (U of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, USA; ashapiro@umass.edu ). An investigation of the cognitive processes underlying the keyword method of foreign vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research (London, UK) 9.2 (2005) 129–146. 05–78Taylor, Barbara M. (U of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA; bmtaylor@umn.edu ), Pearson, P. David, Peterson, Debra S. & Rodriguez, Michael C. The CIERA School Change Framework: an evidence-based approach to professional development and school reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly (Newark, DE, USA) 40.1 (2005), 40–69. 05–79Wong, Albert, T. Y. (Hong Kong U, Hong Kong; atywongl@hkucc.hku.hk ). Writers' mental representations of the intended audience and of the rhetorical purpose for writing and the strategies that they employed when they composed. System (Oxford, UK) 33.1 (2005), 29–47. 05–80Zhang, Ruwen (Zhejiang U of Finance and Economics, China; ruwenvera@hotmail.com ). Using the principles of Exploratory Practice to guide group work in an extensive reading class in China. Language Teaching Research (London, UK) 8.3 (2004), 331–345.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.302 | 0.188 |
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".