/LING
|
Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled. |
Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) post-hoc (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: post-hoc
Is in goldstandard
1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines530 - : ^[65]Bugel’s (2013) study intended to measure the impact that a process-oriented translation course had on Spanish L2 and HLL learners, while the latter served as interpreters for a group of parents that were Spanish monolinguals who lived in the Midwestern United States. To this end, the participants were required to assist as interpreters at parent-teacher conferences, where some teaching/learning materials had been recently translated from English into Spanish. The subjects were also required to partake in a deep post-hoc meditation, given that “the epistemology of service learning is based on the assumption that knowledge is obtained in the interactive process of action and reflection” (^[66]Ebacher, 2013: 398 ). ^[67]Bugel (2013) observed that Spanish L2 learners greatly benefited from this experience in multiple ways. More specifically, they became better prepared to perform as interpreters, as they received ample training on finding and using online resources, such as translators and
2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines545 - : A partir de la influencia del grupo diagnóstico sobre las puntuaciones totales, se procedió a realizar una prueba de Friedman al interior de cada grupo diagnóstico, con el objeto de comparar el desempeño en los tres tipos de relaciones semánticas (taxonómicas, evaluativas, parte-todo). En el caso de los grupos Control y DCL, no se encontraron diferencias en el desempeño según el tipo de relación semántica evaluada, p > .05. Por el contrario, el tipo de relación semántica afectó significativamente el desempeño en el grupo EAL [χ ^2 (2) = 13.19, p = .001, W de Kendall = .18] y en el grupo EAM [χ ^2 (2) = 13.44, p = .001, W de Kendall = .48]. En ambos grupos, los análisis post-hoc revelaron la misma tendencia: el rango promedio de las puntuaciones para las relaciones parte-todo fue significativamente más bajo que para las relaciones taxonómicas (EAL: p = .039; EAM: p = .004). El desempeño para las relaciones evaluativas presentó valores intermedios y no llegó a diferenciarse de las condici
Evaluando al candidato post-hoc:
2) desempeño: 4 (*)
3) interpreters: 3 (*)
post-hoc
Lengua: spa
Frec: 27
Docs: 13
Nombre propio: / 27 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 2
Puntaje: 2.689 = (2 + (1+3) / (1+4.8073549220576)));
Candidato aceptado