Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intellectual and Social ContextIn the latter half of the 20th century, applied linguists, dissatisfied with the positioning of language teaching, called for a multidimensional curriculum to reframe teaching (about) languages, be they first or heritage languages (L1s or HLs); English as a second, foreign or international language (ESL, EFL and EIL); or other foreign languages (FLs).Their dissatisfaction stemmed from languages being viewed in isolation (like linguistic silos), an overemphasis on teaching the four skills in a discrete (unintegrated) manner, and decontextualized grammar and vocabulary teaching.Out of this discontent grew the notion of "language awareness," with language awareness pedagogy implemented in the UK school system for the first time in 1974.The notion and pedagogical interventions emerged from the desire to bridge languages taught in isolation, and recognize the role language plays in all subject matter teaching (i.e., language-across-thecurriculum) (Hawkins, 1999).Later, applied linguists argued that the grammatical and lexical choices authors make in written discourse or other semiotic "texts" are not neutral; their choices can persuade and influence readers of science or business texts just as much as they can shape how polemic arguments are interpreted.Researchers advocated for students to be taught how to read texts critically as part of the school curriculum, arguing that they need explicit instruction on how lexical and syntactic maneuvering can position texts as authoritative and thus influence whether EIL students interpret positions and claims as trustworthy and credible (e.g., Clark, Fairclough, Ivanič, & Martin-Jones, 1991).Students need to be aware that no text is neutral, and that authors can make their points without explicitly revealing their parti pris.Applied linguists called for explicit, yet age-appropriate, instruction on critical discourse analysis to equip students with the skills needed to "read" texts critically (including oral, visual, and other texts), and recognize veiled ideologies expressed through seemingly neutral, yet persuasive, lexical choices, phraseology, and symbols.Students able to discern persuasive (not neutral) manifestations of worldviews expressed through vocabulary choices, as well as syntactic and other AQ1 eelt0660.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.261 | 0.066 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".