Bibliographic record
Abstract
03–192Catroux, Michèle (IUT Bordeaux I, France). Introduction à la Recherche-Action: Modalités d'une démarche théorique centrée sur la pratique. [An introduction to Action Research: Aspects of a practice-centred theoretical process.] Les Cahiers de l'APLIUT (Grenoble, France), 21, 3 (2002), 8–20. 03–193Farrell, Thomas S. C. (Nat. Inst. of Ed./Nanyang Technological U., Singapore). Concept maps to trace conceptual change in preservice English teachers. RELC Journal (Singapore), 32, 2 (2001), 27–44. 03–194González-Bueno, Manuela (U. of Kansas, USA). Pronunciation teaching component in SL/FL education programs. Training teachers to teach pronunciation. Applied Language Learning (Presidio of Monterey, CA, USA), 12, 2 (2001), 133–46. 03–195Gwyn-Paquette, Caroline (U. of Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Email: cgwyn@interlinx.qc.ca ) and Tochon, François Victor. The role of reflective conversations and feedback in helping preservice teachers learn to use cooperative activities in their second language classrooms. The Modern Language Journal (Malden, MA, USA), 86, 2 (2002), 204–26. 03–196Lamie, Judith (U. of Birmingham, UK; Email: j.m.lamie@bham.ac.uk ). An investigation into the process of change: The impact of in-service training on Japanese teachers of English. Journal of In-service Education (Wallingford, UK), 28, 1 (2002), 135–61. 03–197Lozano, Albert S., Sung, Hyekyung, Padilla, Amado M. and Silva, Duarte M. (Stanford U., California, USA). Evaluation of professional development for language teachers in California. Foreign Language Annals (New York, USA), 35, 2 (2002), 161–70. 03–198Macrory, Gee (Inst. of Ed., The Manchester Metropolitan U., UK). Learning to talk like a language teacher: Crossing the boundary between university and school. Prospect (Macquarie U., Sydney, Australia), 17, 2 (2002), 62–70. 03–199Narcy-Combes, Jean-Paul (Université de La Rochelle, France). La recherche-action en didactique des langues: apprentissage, compagnonnage ou évolution libre? [Action research for language teachers in French higher education: From a traditional approach to collegiality.] Les Cahiers de l'APLIUT (Grenoble, France), 21, 2 (2001), 40–52. 03–200O'Brien, Teresa (U. of Manchester, UK). ‘Recherche-action’/‘Recherche basée sur la pratique’ et développement professionel. [Action research/Practice-based research and professional development.] Les Cahiers de l'APLIUT (Grenoble, France), 21, 2 (2001), 7–23. 03–201Schocker-von Ditfurth, Marita (U. of Ed., Schwäbisch-Gmünd, Germany; Email: Marita@Schocker_Ditfurth.de ) and Legutke, Michael K. Visions of what is possible in teacher education–or lost in complexity? ELT Journal (Oxford, UK), 56, 2 (2002), 162–71. 03–202Sercu, Lies and Peters, Elke (KU Leuven, Belgium; Email: Lies.sercu@arts.kuleuven.ac.be ) Learning e–learning–a comprehensive investigation of course developers' and language teacher trainees' views regarding the usefulness and effectiveness of a multimedia self-tuition course. ReCALL (Cambridge, UK), 14, 1 (2002), 32–46. 03–203Ypsilandis, G. S. (U. of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece; Email: ypsi@uom.gr ). Feedback in distance education. Computer Assisted Language Learning (Lisse, The Netherlands), 15, 2 (2002), 167–81.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.645 | 0.491 |
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".