ArticlePloS one2024
The application effect of the Rasch measurement model combined with the CRF model: An analysis based on English discourse.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of the emotional regulation inventory (ERI) using the Rasch model.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To analyze English discourse more accurately and provide more detailed feedback information, this study applies Rasch measurement and Conditional Random Field (CRF) models to English discourse analysis. The Rasch measurement model is widely used to evaluate and quantify the potential traits of individuals, and it has remarkable advantages in measurement and evaluation. By combining the CRF model, the Rasch model is employed to model the structural and semantic information in the discourse and use this model to carry out sequence labeling, to enhance the ability to capture the internal relations of the discourse. Finally, this study conducts comparative experiments on integrating the Rasch measurement and CRF models, comparing the outcomes against traditional scoring methods and the standalone CRF model. The research findings indicate that: (1) The discourse component syntactic analysis model on the Penn Treebank (PTB) database obtained Unlabeled Attachment Score (UAS) values of 94.07, 95.76, 95.67, and 95.43, and Labeled Attachment Score (LAS) values of 92.47, 92.33, 92.49, and 92.46 for the LOC, CRF, CRF2O, and MFVI models, respectively. After adding the Rasch measurement model, the UAS values of the four models on the PTB database are 96.85, 96.77, 96.92, and 96.78 for the LOC, CRF, CRF2O, and MFVI models, respectively, with LAS values of 95.33, 95.34, 95.39, and 95.32, all showing significant improvement. (2) By combining contextual information with CRF models, students can better understand their discourse expression, capture the connections between English discourse sentences, and analyze English discourse more comprehensively. This study provides new ideas and methods for researchers in English language education and linguistics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.