Comparative judgement for advancing research in applied linguistics
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Comparative judgments have been shown to yield more reliable and efficient assessments than absolute classifications.
“as comparative judgments have been shown to yield more reliable and efficient assessments than absolute classifications (Thwaites and Paquot 2024).”
From Characterizing AI-Generated Misinformation on Social Media (2025) · cites this paper as Thwaites and Paquot 2024
Cites
Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners
Kormos, J., & Dénes (2004) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001 · Cited by 679 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Characterizing AI-Generated Misinformation on Social Media
Drolsbach, C., Demirel, E., & Pröllochs, N. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.10266
“A long tail of low-frequency languages reflects the dataset’s global scope, though many languages are represented by only a handful of posts.”
- Authors
- Thwaites, P., & Paquot, M.
- Affiliations
- UCLouvain (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Paquot, Magali
- Venue
- Research Methods in Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-12
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 100142
- ISSN
- 2772-7661 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4401073467
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 0.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Research Methods in Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
- Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Fond National de la Recherche Scientific
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Keywords
- comparative judgment, construct measurement, perceptual measurement, scale development
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
