Bibliographic record
Abstract
04–64Andrews, Richard (U. of York, UK). Where next in research on ICT and literacies?English in Education (Sheffield, UK), 37, 3 (2003), 28–41. 04–65Beard, Roger (Leeds U., UK; Email: R.F.Beard@education.leeds.ac.uk ). Not the whole story of the national literacy strategy: a response to Dominic Wyse. British Educational Research Journal (London, UK), 29, 6 (2003), 917–928. 04–66Bournot-Trites, M. and Seror, J. (University of British Columbia, Canada; Email: monique.bournot-trites@ubc.ca ). Students' and teachers' perceptions about strategies which promote proficiency in second language writing. Revue Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquée/Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (Ottawa, Canada), 6, 2 (2003), 129–157. 04–67Gardner, Dee (Brigham Young University, USA). Vocabulary input through extensive reading: a comparison of words found in children's narrative and expository reading materials. Applied Linguistics (Oxford, UK), 25, 1 (2004), 1–37. 04–68Hu, Jim (U. College of the Cariboo, Canada). Thinking languages in L2 writing: research findings and pedagogical implications. TESL Canada Journal/Revue du TESL Canada (Burnaby, Canada), 21, 1 (2003), 39–63. 04–69Jarvis, Scott (Ohio University, USA; Email: Jarvis@ohio.edu ), Grant, Leslie, Bikowski, Dawn and Ferris, Dana. Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing (New York, USA), 12, 4 (2003), 377–403. 04–70Mihwa Chung, Teresa and Nation, Paul (Victoria University of Wellington, NZ). Technical vocabulary in specialised texts. Reading in a Foreign Language (Hawai'i, USA), 15, 2 (2003), 103–116. 04–71Ndiaye, M. and Vandeventer Faltin, A. (University of Geneva, Switzerland; Email: Anne.Vandeventer@lettres.unige.ch ). A spell checker tailored to language learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning (Lisse, The Netherlands), 16, 2–3 (2003), 213–232. 04–72Pecorari, Diane (Stockholm University, Sweden; Email: Diane.Pecorari@English.su.se ). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing (New York, USA), 12, 4 (2003), 317–345. 04–73Ridgway, Tony (Queen's U., UK). Literacy and foreign language reading. Reading in a Foreign Language (Hawai'i, USA), 15, 2 (2003), 117–129. 04–74Shi, L., Wang, W. and Wen, Q. (University of British Columbia, Canada; Email: ling.shi@ubc.ca ). Teaching experience and evaluation of second-language students' writing. Revue Canadienne de Linguistic Appliquée/Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (Ottawa, Canada), 6, 2 (2003), 219–236. 04–75Stuart, Morag (U. of London; Email: m.stuart@ioe.ac.uk ). Getting ready for reading: a follow-up study of inner city second language learners at the end of Key Stage 1. British Journal of Educational Psychology (Leicester, UK), 74 (2004), 15–36. 04–76Stuart, Morag (U. of London, UK; Email: m.stuart@ioe.ac.uk ), Dixon, Maureen, Masterson, Jackie and Gray, Bob. Children's early reading vocabulary: description and word frequency lists. British Journal of Educational Psychology (Leicester, UK), 73 (2003), 585–598. 04–77Takagaki, Toshiyuki.The revision patterns and intentions in L1 and L2 by Japanese writers: a case study. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada (Burnaby, Canada), 21, 1 (2003), 22–38. 04–78Van de Poel, K. and Swanepoel, P. (Centre for Language and Speech, University of Antwerp, Belgium; Email: vanpoel@uia.ua.ac.be ). Theoretical and methodological pluralism in designing effective lexical support for CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning (Lisse, The Netherlands), 16, 2–3 (2003), 173–211. 04–79Wang, Lurong (University of Toronto, Canada; Email: lwang@oise.utoronto.ca ). Switching to first language among writers with differing second-language proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing (New York, USA), 12, 4 (2003), 347–375. 04–80Warner, Lionel (Newlands Girls' School, Maidenhead, UK). Wider reading. English in Education (Sheffield, UK), 37, 3 (2003), 13–18. 04–81Williams, Mary (Brunel U., UK). The importance of metacognition in the literacy development of young gifted and talented children. Gifted Education International (Bicester, UK), 17, 3 (2003). 04–82Wyse, Dominic (Liverpool John Moores U., UK; Email: d.wyse@livijm.ac.uk ). The national literacy strategy: a critical review of empirical evidence. British Educational Research Journal (London, UK), 29, 6 (2003), 903–916.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.130 | 0.060 |
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".