Influence of Metonymic Thinking on the Critical Thinking Ability of English Majors Based on Data Mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English majors must enhance their critical thinking skills in order to keep up with the times. It is a constant and solid guarantee of national talent resources, although English majors' critical thinking capacity is still being explored. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of metonymic thinking on English majors' critical thinking abilities. This research presents an improved analytic hierarchy technique based on data mining for evaluating the critical thinking skills of English majors for the purpose to provide students with a more accurate and clear understanding of themselves. It helps kids develop critical thinking abilities. The upgraded analytic hierarchy method has a greater accuracy rate of evaluation than the classic analytic hierarchy process. The experimental results of this paper show that in the test of metonymy ability before the experiment, only 30% of the students answered correctly. It shows that only 30% of the students have good metonymy ability, and the corresponding critical thinking ability is weak. But after the experiment, in the test of metonymy ability, 78% of the students in the experimental group answered the test questions correctly, while the correct rate in the control group was only 40%. It shows that the students' metonymy ability has been improved after the experiment, and their critical thinking ability has also become stronger. This shows that the relationship between the two is positively correlated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".