Bibliographic record
Abstract
07–259Abasi, Ali R., Nahal Akbari & Barbara Graves (U Ottawa, Canada), Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing (Elsevier) 15.2 (2006), 102–117. 07–260Brantmeier, Cindy (Washington U, St Louis, USA), Toward a multicomponent model of interest and L2 reading: Sources of interest, perceived situational interest, and comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language (U Hawaii, USA) 18.2 (2006), 89–115. 07–261Bremner, Stephen (City U Hong Kong, China), Politeness, power, and activity systems: Written requests and multiple audiences in an institutional setting. Written Communication (Sage) 23.4 (2006), 397–423. 07–262Cargill, Margaret (U Adelaide, Australia) & Patrick O'Connor, Developing Chinese scientists' skills for publishing in English: Evaluating collaborating-colleague workshops based on genre analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (Elsevier) 5.3 (2006), 207–221. 07–263Edge, Julian, Reading to take notes and to summarize: A classroom procedure (reprint of author's 1983 article). Reading in a Foreign Language (U Hawaii, USA), 1.2, 93–98. 07–264Edge, Julian (Manchester U, UK; julian.edge@manchester.ac.uk ), From paragraphs to patterns: Ablocutionary value in autobiography. Reading in a Foreign Language (U Hawaii, USA) 18.2 (2006), 124–127. 07–265Goetry, Vincent, Lesly Wade-Woolley, Régine Kolinsky & Philıppe Mousty (Queen's U, Belgium; vgoetry@ulb.ac.be ), The role of stress processing abilities in the development of bilingual reading. Journal of Research in Reading (Blackwell) 29.3 (2006), 349–362. 07–266Huang, Shu-Chen (National Chiao Tung U, Hsinchu, China; sjh241@yahoo.com.tw ), Reading English for academic purposes – What situational factors may motivate learners to read?System (Elsevier) 34.3 (2006), 371–383. 07–267Huang, Shu-Chen, Yuh-Show Cheng & Chiou-Lan Chern (National Chiao Tung U, Hsinchu, Taiwan; sjh241@yahoo.com.tw ), Pre-reading materials from subject matter texts – Learner choices and the underlying learner characteristics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (Elsevier) 5.3 (2006), 193–206. 07–268Hui-Tzu Min (National Cheng Kung U, Tainan, Taiwan), The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing (Elsevier) 15.2 (2006), 118–141. 07–269Ikeda, Makiko (Himeji Dokkyo U, Japan; maikoike@wonder.ocn.ne.jp ) & Takeuchi, Osamu, Clarifying the differences in learning EFL reading strategies: An analysis of portfolios. System (Elsevier) 34.3 (2006), 384–398. 07–270Juzwik, Mary M. (Michigan State U, East Lansing, USA, mmjuzwik@msu.edu ), Svjetlana Curcic, Kimberly Wolbers, Kathleen D. Moxley, Lisa M. Dimling & Rebecca K. Shankland, Writing into the 21st century: An overview of research on writing, 1999 to 2004. Written Communication (Sage) 23.4 (2006), 452–476. 07–271Ma, Jee Hyun (U Hawaii, USA; jeehyun@hawaii.edu ), Just taking notes is not enough. Reading in a Foreign Language (U Hawaii, USA) 18.2 (2006), 128–130. 07–272Orsolini, Margherita (Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’; margherita.orsolini@uniroma1.it ), Rachele Fanari, Valeria Tosi, Barbara De Nigris & Roberto Carrieri, From phonological recoding to lexical reading: A longitudinal study on reading development in Italian. Language and Cognitive Processes (Routledge/Taylor & Francis) 21.5 (2006), 576–607. 07–273Pretorious, Elizabeth (U South Africa, South Africa; pretoej@unisa.ac.za ), The comprehension of logical relations in expository texts by students who study through the medium of ESL. System (Elsevier) 34.3 (2006), 432–450. 07–274Rogers, Rebecca & Melissa Mosley, Racial literacy in a second-grade classroom: Critical race theory, whiteness studies, and literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly (International Reading Association) 41.4 (2006), 462–495. 07–275Ross, Nigel (Institute for Interpreters and Translators, Milan, Italy), Writing in the Information Age. English Today (Cambridge University Press) 22.3 (2006), 47–50. 07–276Schwanenflugel, Paula J., Elizabeth B. Meisinger, Joseph M. Wisenbaker, M. R. Kuhn, Gregory P. Strauss & Robin D. Morris, Becoming a fluent and automatic reader in the early elementary school years. Reading Research Quarterly (International Reading Association) 41.4 (2006), 496–522. 07–277Starfield, Sue & Louise J. Ravelli (U New South Wales, Sydney, Australia), ‘The writing of this thesis was a process that I could not explore with the positivistic detachment of the classical sociologist’: Self and structure inNew Humanitiesresearch theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (Elsevier) 5.3 (2006), 222–243. 07–278Tardy, Christine M. (DePaul U, Chicago, USA), Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and a look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing (Elsevier) 15.2 (2006), 79–101. 07–279Weber, Rose-Marıe (State U New York, USA; rweber@albany.edu ), Function words in the prosody of fluent reading. Journal of Research in Reading (Blackwell) 29.3 (2006), 258–269. 07–280Wood, Clare (Coventry U, UK; c.wood@coventry.ac.uk ), Metrical stress sensitivity in young children and its relationship to phonological awareness and reading. Journal of Research in Reading (Blackwell) 29.3 (2006), 270–287. 07–281Ziegler, Johannes C. & Usha Goswami (U Cambridge, UK; ucg10@cam.ac.uk ), Becoming literate in different languages: Similar problems, different solutions. Developmental Science (Blackwell) 9.5 (2006), 429–436.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.686 | 0.716 |
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".