MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W637467092

Results of a Language Needs-Analysis Survey of Saga University Freshman and Sophomores in Native-Speaker Active English Classes

2010· article· en· W637467092 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Coleman South

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTOEICTest of English as a Foreign LanguageMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogyEnglish languageMedical educationLinguisticsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2006, a new program was established at Saga University with the primary purpose of improving students' English communication ability. The program in its current form has three elements: 1) one-credit Active English (AE) classes for Japanese freshmen (Honjo) and sophomores (Nabeshima); 2) non-credit classes in academic writing (2 levels), academic speaking (2 levels), TOEFL strategies and practice, and TOEIC strategies and practice for all Saga students through the International Student Center; and 3) various English for Academic Purposes courses (2 credits each) specifically for individual departments. The teachers of the classes are all native peakers of English, each with decades of English-teaching experience in various countries of North America, Asia, and Africa. Two of them are from Canada, two from the U.S., and one from Austraila. While the Saga University system labels all the AE classes, regardless of level, as simply「英語 N」, where N=native English-speaking teacher, the English labels are more descriptive, denoting both the style of the classes (active) and students' English skill level at entry: AE 1, AE 2, and AE 3. The survey was given to only the AE students, so all references that follow are to those students, only.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207