MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7139984544 · doi:10.58213/cwtg1807

IELTS as a Tool for Language Proficiency Test: A Study with reference to immigration

2015· article· W7139984544 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
DEEPAK J. MASHRU

Bibliographic record

VenueVidhyayana · 2015
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationGovernment (linguistics)Language proficiencyLanguage assessmentTest (biology)Language barrierFirst language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is generally recognized that proficiency in either English or French is essential if you wish to be economically successful in Canada. Indeed, numerous recent studies reveal that an immigrant’s language proficiency is perhaps the most important indicator of economic success. Canada is very keen to welcome immigrants from all over the world. Canadian government also knows about the difficulties of future applicants which they are facing due to a high IELTS band requirement for additional points of Canadian Immigration. Due to these difficulties faced by the majority of the people over the world, Canadian government has very kindly reduced the IELTS score requirement for Canadian Immigration Points. TheCitizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) has now decreased the IELTS band requirement criteria for Canada Skilled worker Immigration points. There are many cases where applicants were rejected only due to less score in IELTS. The Government of Canada has taken note of these studies, and has begun implanting language requirements for numerous immigration programs. The research paper will confer the barriers and suggestions for IELTS as a language proficiency test for Canadian Immigration.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVidhyayanaSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207