MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413149616 · doi:10.64152/10125/44164

Review of The Hockey Sweater CD-ROM

2009· article· en· W4413149616 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage learning & technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCD-ROMLibrary scienceMultimediaComputer scienceMathematics educationWorld Wide WebPsychologyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CD-ROM The Hockey Sweater PlatformWindows 2000 and XP Mac OS X 10.3 or higher CD drive Software and hardware requirementsThe English version of the CD-ROM, like its French counterpart, is divided into three "periods" to represent the divisions of a hockey game.There are two other sections, "Zone" and "Encounters", both of which provide expanded writing activities and opportunities to learn about the creators of the the CD-ROM and the writer of the original story, Roch Carrier.The interactive activities on the CD-ROM are geared toward three specific proficiency levels: advanced beginner, called "Peewee"; intermediate, called "Junior"; and advanced, called "Pro" (for professional), reminiscent of levels in hockey.The levels of the interactive activities are indicated with hockey sticks; one hockey stick is used for Peewee, two for Junior, and three for the Pro level.The addition of the hockey sticks makes the CD-ROM appealing to young English language learners and also provides a quick way to identify the level for which an activity is intended.Overall, The Hockey Sweater provides good interactive listening, reading, vocabulary, and culture activities.Caws states that "[a]t first glance, Le chandail de hockey CD-ROM seems to require

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.006

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage learning & technologySame topicMathematics, Computing, and Information ProcessingFrench-language works237,207