MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307244303 · doi:10.1075/itl.22008.rob

3K-LEx-MC

2022· article· en· W4307244303 on OpenAlexaff
Pablo Robles‐García, Glen Wallace, Claudia Sánchez‐Gutiérrez

Bibliographic record

VenueITL Review of Applied Linguistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRasch modelCourseworkTest (biology)VocabularyReliability (semiconductor)Mathematics educationPsychologyItem analysisCurse of dimensionalityItem response theoryPolytomous Rasch modelEnglish as a foreign languageNatural language processingComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsLinguisticsPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study presents the development and validation of a 132-item Spanish-English bilingual multiple-choice vocabulary test based on the 3,000 most frequent lemmas that distinguishes between North American university students who satisfy the Foreign Language requirement and those who need to complete coursework. 819 students were assigned to one of the two 144-item forms of the preliminary test, which had 72 shared anchor items and other 72 form-specific items. Factor analysis was used to evaluate dimensionality and the Rasch model was used to select the items that best differentiated between these two student populations. This final form was administered to 213 students. Results showed high levels of unidimensionality, and the final form provided a Rasch reliability coefficient of 0.97.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4130.301

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueITL Review of Applied LinguisticsSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207