MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316650436 · doi:10.5539/jel.v12n1p108

Analysing the Listening Texts in the Textbooks Used in Teaching Turkish to Foreigners in Terms of Word Types: New Istanbul Turkish for International Students Course Book A1

2023· article· en· W4316650436 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erdost Özkan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Methods and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningTurkishNounVocabularyLinguisticsPsychologyWord (group theory)Word lists by frequencySentenceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to examine the vocabulary included in listening texts in the textbooks used in teaching Turkish to foreigners according to their types. The study was limited to New Istanbul Turkish For International Students Course Book—A1 level. Accordingly, a total of eighteen listening texts in six units were analyzed. The document analysis method was used in the study. For this purpose, the words in the listening texts were analyzed as nouns, verbs, and phrases according to the distinction in the word list in the source of the study. In the analysis of the texts, the word types in the listening texts were compared with the word list shared with the reader at the end of each unit, and this ratio was reflected in the word types of tables with numerical values. Accordingly, a total of 592 words were included in eighteen listening texts. Of these, 429 are nouns, 129 are verbs and 34 are phrases. While a total of 957-word types are included in the word lists given in the book, 754 of them are nouns, 179 of them are verbs and 24 of them are phrases. When the word types within the listening texts in the book were analyzed, it was found that 149 out of 592-word types were used again. Another comparison is related to common uses. The word types in the listening texts were compared with the word lists in the textbook and 137 common word types were found. When at the distribution of word type preferences in the listening texts from the first unit to the last unit, it is observed that nouns, verbs, and phrases are partially distributed in a balanced way.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.413 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEducational Methods and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207