Review and analysis of empirical articles published in TESOL Quarterly over its lifespan
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the results of a bibliometric study of 696 empirical articles (EAs) published in TESOL Quarterly (TQ) over its lifespan (1967-2019). We report overall and periodic reviews (1967-1979, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2009, 2010-2019) concerning the following themes: (1) contexts and participants, (2) research foci and theoretical orientations, and (3) research methodology and data sources. A typical article was written by a single author addressing a learning/teaching English issue related to undergraduates in US universities. The most common research foci were instruction, learning, and assessment. A quarter of the articles did not have a specifiable theoretical orientation, and for those that had, the main theoretical orientations were linguistic/scientific, linguistic/cognitive, and social. The most frequently used research methodologies were quantitative, qualitative, and eclectic, and the top three data sources used by researchers were elicitation, multiple sources, and observation. Based on the findings, we make suggestions for future research in TESOL. Overall, the present review and analysis of published EAs give readers a birds-eye view of the research gravity in TQ over the last 52 years.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it