MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288751120 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v12n5p59

Teaching Complex Sentences in ESL Reading: Structural Analysis

2022· article· en· W4288751120 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yufei Cai, Xiaoguang Yao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJilin Office of Philosophy and Social Science
KeywordsConceptualizationReading (process)Test (biology)Second languageCognitionLinguisticsPsychologyEmpirical researchMathematics educationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Informed by the reading ability of English complex sentences, as well as the syntactic acquisition and cognition, this empirical study, based on a structural analysis approach, investigated 32 Chinese high school students in their ESL (English as Second Language) reading course. The results indicated that: (1) the differences between students’ pre- and post-test are significant; (2) structural analysis approach was found to have independent positive predictive effects on Chinese high school students’ syntactic proficiency. The findings can generate implications for TESL (Teaching English as Second Language) and provide insights to theoretical conceptualization of L2 (Second Language) reading.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207