MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388863266 · doi:10.1075/jslp.23029.mun

Listening to the “noise” in the data

2023· article· en· W4388863266 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Second Language Pronunciation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningNoise (video)PhenomenonVariation (astronomy)Process (computing)Term (time)Computer sciencePsychologyData scienceCognitive psychologyEpistemologyArtificial intelligenceCommunicationPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The term “noise” is often applied to the seemingly random variability that always appears in human data, and which is assumed to be of no interest to the researcher. Some of this variability is unavoidably due to measurement tools or the way in which we use them, and some is due to the unstable nature of human behaviour. In such cases, we may be justified in treating the variability as irrelevant noise. However, we cannot assume that all inexplicable variation is unimportant. Using examples from earlier research, I will argue that individual variability is a phenomenon worthy of study in its own right. Not only can it help us understand the nuances of the learning process, but giving it careful consideration can be a valuable step in determining how to effectively apply research findings in pedagogy.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.344 · 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