Morphology matters, or Do you need to teach affixes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presented research investigates the role of morphological complexity (with the focus on derived forms, e.g. 'player' rather than inflected ones, e.g. 'plays', in academic writing through the analysis of written work produced by ten students over the course of their EAP studies in IPU New Zealand. The study is aimed at analyzing the relationship between the accurate use of morphologically complex vocabulary in students' written assessments and the grades that they received for their work. The quantitative analysis indicates that there is a relation between the grade and morphological derivational complexity. The qualitative analysis of individual students’ work further explores the noted trends to investigate what types of complex words are most commonly used at different levels of language proficiency. The analysis is based on Bauer and Nation’s (1993) system of seven word-family levels to establish the appropriate expectations with regard to the level of morphological awareness for learners who are preparing for undergraduate study. The results of the analysis can be used as the basis of recommendations to EAP practitioners and EAP curriculum developers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.176 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".