Bibliographic record
Abstract
04–378 Arkoudis, Sophie (U. of Melbourne, Australia; Email: s.arkoudis@unimelb.edu.au ) and O'Loughlin, Kieran. Tensions between validity and outcomes: teacher assessment of written work of recently arrived ESL students. Language Testing (London, UK), 24, 3 (2004), 284–304. 04–379 Cheng, Lyang (Queen's U. Canada; Email: chengl@educ.queensu.ca ). Rogers, Todd and Hu, Huiqin. ESL/EFL instructors' classroom assessment practices: purpose, methods and procedures. Language Testing (London, UK), 24, 3 (2004), 360–389. 04–380 Davison, Chris (U. of Hong Kong, China; Email: cdavison@hkucc.hku.hk ). The contradictory culture of teacher-based assessment: ESL teacher assessment practices in Australian and Hong Kong secondary schools. Language Testing (London, UK), 24, 3 (2004), 305–334. 04–381 Edelenbos, Peter (U. of Groningen and The Netherlands Language Academy, The Netherlands; Email: peter.edelenbos@talenacademie.nl ) and Kubanek-German, Angelika. Teacher-assessment: the concept of ‘diagnostic competence'. Language Testing (London, UK), 24, 3 (2004), 259–283. 04–382 Laufer, Batia and Goldstein, Zahava (U. of Haifa, Israel; Email: batialau@research.haifa.ac.il ). Testing vocabulary knowledge: size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning (Malden, Massachusetts, USA), 54, 3 (2004), 399–436. 04–383 Lee, Soyoung (Inha U., South Korea; Email: soyoungl@inha.ac.kr ). A study on comparability of paper-based and computer-based reading tests scores. English Teaching (Anseongunn, South Korea), 59, 2 (2004), 165–178. 04–384 Leung, Constant (Kings College, London, UK; Email: leung@kcl.ac.uk ) and Mohan, Bernard. Teacher formative assessment and talk in classroom contexts: assessment as discourse and assessment of discourse. Language Testing (London, UK), 24, 3 (2004), 335–359. 04–385 MacDonald, Kim (St Francis Xavier U, Canada; Email: kmcdona@stfx.ca ), Nielsen, Jean and Lai, Lisa. Selecting and using computer-based language tests (CBLTs) to assess language proficiency: guidelines for educators. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada (Burnaby, Canada), 21, 2 (2004), 93–104.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.413 | 0.296 |
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".