A szlenggel kapcsolatos tanulói attitűdök és elvárások az anyanyelvi órán = Student attitudes and expectations of sleng on first-langauage classes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A tanulmány középiskolások véleményét ismerteti arról, hogy milyen reakciót tartanak elfogadhatónak pedagógusaiktól a szleng használatakor. Amegkérdezett, régiónként húsz-húsz 9. és 12. évfolyamos (összesen háromszázhúsz) tanuló közel fele a standard közvetítését, így a szleng egyértelmű elutasítását várja el tanárától, negyedük – többnyire a fejlettebb anyanyelvi tudatú végzősök – feltételekhez szabja a szleng elfogadását: például a használt fordulat ne legyen sértő, ne a tananyagra vonatkozzon, a diákok legyenek képesek „lefordítani” köznyelvre is. A legkisebb csoportot képviselik azok a diákok, akik szerint a tanárnak kivétel nélkül el kell fogadnia a szleng használatát. A dolgozat rávilágít mindennek hátrányaira is: a szleng tanári elfogadása, használata csorbíthatja a tekintélyét, és könnyen mesterkéltté, nevetségessé, bizalmaskodóvá teheti őt tanítványai szemében. | This study presents the opinion of high school students about what reactions they consider as acceptable from their teachers concerning the use of slang. Twenty student respondents per region from ninth and twelfth grade (320 persons in total) have participated in the survey. Almost half of them expect standard language use from their teachers, i.e., the clear rejection of slang; one quarter of them, mainly students with more conscious first-language knowledge and in their final year at high school, impose conditions on the acceptability of slang; for instance, the expression used should not be offensive, it should not be related to the teaching material, and students should be able to “translate” it into vernacular. The smallest group of respondents claims that teachers should accept the use of slang under all conditions. The study also points at the disadvantages of the acceptance of slang: if a teacher accepts the use of slang, it may decrease students’ respect towards him and he may easily become affected, ridiculous, and familiar.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.007 |
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".