MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318200618 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v13n2p91

Incorporating Students’ Native Languages in the Study Syllabus as a Foundation for Learning the New Language

2023· article· en· W4318200618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nibal Malkawi, Fatima Ismael

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocioeconomic Development in MENA
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirecció General de Recerca, Generalitat de CatalunyaDirektorat Riset dan Pengabdian Masyarakat
KeywordsSyllabusFoundation (evidence)Work (physics)Computer scienceMathematics educationSection (typography)Thematic analysisData collectionSociologyQualitative researchPsychologyEngineeringPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research work has been conducted to develop an understanding of the importance of introducing native languages within the education system. The main objective of this research is to develop an understanding of how to build a strong foundation for children. In the introduction, the importance of native language was discussed, followed by the background. In this section, the education system of Jordan has been discussed along with the education systems of other countries. In the literature review, factors that play an important role in developing the children's foundation have been discussed. In addition, Krashen’s monitor model has also been analyzed in this research work. In the research methodology section, discussions have been conducted on the different research tools that have been used for conducting this research work. Secondary data collection methods have been used in conducting thematic analysis. Finally, the conclusion of this research work has been discussed, along with certain recommendations that can be implemented in the education system to improve the students' career growth.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.343 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicSocioeconomic Development in MENAFrench-language works237,207