/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) evaluation (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

---

1) Candidate: evaluation

Is in goldstandard

---

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines282 - : The theory of Appraisal proposes a taxonomy which includes the systems of ATTITUDE, ENGAGEMENT and GRADUATION. ATTITUDE refers to "our feelings, including emotional reactions, judgments of behavior and evaluation of things" (Martin & White, 2005: 35 ). This system is, in turn, divided into three categories: AFFECT, JUDGEMENT and APPRECIATION. AFFECT is defined in terms of "resources for expressing feelings" whereas JUDGEMENT refers to "resources for judging character", and APPRECIATION to "resources for valuing the worth of things" (Martin & Rose, 2003: 24).

---

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines282 - : When other voices are entertained, the preferred structure used is It is + epistemic relational/cognitive mental process to express the evaluation, with a highly impersonal, untraceable voice, as shown in the following examples:

---

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines283 - : The theory of Appraisal proposes a taxonomy which includes the systems of ATTITUDE, ENGAGEMENT and GRADUATION. ATTITUDE refers to "our feelings, including emotional reactions, judgments of behavior and evaluation of things" (Martin & White, 2005: 35 ). This system is, in turn, divided into three categories: AFFECT, JUDGEMENT and APPRECIATION. AFFECT is defined in terms of "resources for expressing feelings" whereas JUDGEMENT refers to "resources for judging character", and APPRECIATION to "resources for valuing the worth of things" (Martin & Rose, 2003: 24).

---

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines283 - : When other voices are entertained, the preferred structure used is It is + epistemic relational/cognitive mental process to express the evaluation, with a highly impersonal, untraceable voice, as shown in the following examples:

---

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines364 - : A. Relevance and Materiality vs. Maxim of Quantity: information can only really be regarded as useful if it is relevant in meeting the needs of the audience, enabling them to draw on it in order to form an opinion or arrive at a decision, through the evaluation of past, present or future events (GCRIAR, 2008: 11 ).

---

6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines371 - : The second question presented for qualitative evaluation was the following:

---

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : Regarding the diachronic-synchronic axis, according to Stewart (2010), there is a tendency to use both diachronic and synchronic criteria when approaching semantic prosody, without being aware of the differences that each approach involves. As for the diachronic point of view, semantic prosody is defined as an attached meaning or as a meaning which is transferred from one word to another during the course of time (Stewart, 2010). In his critical evaluation of semantic prosody, Stewart (2010) summarizes how this phenomenon has been approached within a diachronic framework, where we can find a wide range of metaphors describing semantic prosody as a meaning transferable to an item over time:

---

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines450 - : La denominada Appraisal Theory constituye una propuesta teórica que se ocupa del componente interpersonal del lenguaje y, más concretamente, de cómo se comunican significados interpersonales que ponen de manifiesto la voluntad del emisor de entablar un diálogo con el receptor, condicionada por las relaciones de poder y de solidaridad entre los participantes en el acto comunicativo. Fue desarrollada principalmente por ^[33]Martin y White (2005) en su obra The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English, a partir del modelo de la lingüística sistémico-funcional para el inglés (^[34]Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004 ; ^[35]Hood & Martin, 2005; ^[36]Hood, 2010).

---

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines598 - : Our notion of epistemic modality in this paper follows that of ^[119]Nuyts (2001: 21), which is as follows: epistemic modality refers to the “evaluation of the chances that a certain hypothetical state of affairs under consideration (or some aspect of it) will occur, is occurring or has occurred in a possible world��. This sense of evaluation is also highlighted by ^[120]Cornillie (2009: 47 ) as an epistemic modal device hedging a proposition, “epistemic modality evaluates the likelihood that this proposition is true”.

---

10
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines602 - : Finally, students had to select another country experiencing/dealing with the issue, find relevant sources, evaluate these and compare the issue in the two countries -this was the final assignment. For further detail on each assignment and evaluation criteria, please go to: https://englishpolyu .wixsite.com/renialopez/academic-writing.

Evaluando al candidato evaluation:

1) martin: 6
2) epistemic: 6 (*)
3) resources: 6
4) refers: 5
5) affect: 4
7) attitude: 4
8) prosody: 4 (*)
9) semantic: 4 (*)
10) judgement: 4
11) feelings: 4
12) appraisal: 4 (*)
13) modality: 3 (*)
14) diachronic: 3 (*)
20) stewart: 3

evaluation
Lengua: eng
Frec: 319
Docs: 114
Nombre propio: 1 / 319 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 6
Puntaje: 6.743 = (6 + (1+5.93073733756289) / (1+8.32192809488736)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)

evaluation

: De la Cruz's ECL 1 and 2 Tests (1999) for the evaluation of reading comprehension. : Allal, L. (1993) Evaluation formative des processus d'apprentissage: le rôle des regulations métacognitives. En R. Hivon (dir.) L'évaluation des apprentissages-Reflexions, nouvelles tendances et formation. Quebec: Sherbrooke. Éditions du CRP. : Amigo, E., Artiles, J., Gonzalo, J., Spina, D. & Liu, B. (2010). WePS-3 Evaluation Campaign: Overview of the Online Reputation Management Task. In 2nd Web People Search Evaluation Workshop (WePS 2010). Padova, Italy: CLEF 2010 Conference. : Baecher, L., Kung, S. C., Jewkes, A. M. & Rosalia, C. (2013). The role of video for self evaluation in early field experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 189-197. : Barbu, V. (2008). Hyponymy patterns: Semi-automatic extraction, evaluation and inter-lingual comparison. En P. Sojka, A. Horak, I. Kopecek & P. Karel (Eds.), Text, Speech and Dialogue (pp. 37-44). Berlin: Springer. : Baroni, M. & Bisi, S. (2004). Using cooccurrence statistics and the Web to discover synonyms in a technical language. En Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Lisbon: ELDA. : Bartha, P. (2010). By parallel reasoning: The construction and evaluation of analogical arguments. Nueva York: Oxford University Press. : Bednarek, M. (2006). Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. Londres: Continuum. : Benton, S. L., Duchon, D. & Pallett, W. H. (2013). Validity of student self-reported ratings of learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38, 377-388. : Bordag, S. (2006). Word sense induction: Triplet-based clustering and automatic evaluation. Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL) (pp. 137-144). : Britt, M. A., Richter, T. & Rouet, J. F. (2014). Scientific Literacy: The role of goal- directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49, 104-122. : Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P. & Magnini, B. (2007). Ontology learning from text: Methods, evaluation and applications. Amsterdam: IOS Press. : Burstein, J., Leacock, C. & Swartz, R. (2001). Automated evaluation of essays and short answers. Proceedings of the 5^th Computer Assisted Assessment International Conference, Loughborough, U.K. : Burston, J. (1996). A comparative evaluation of French grammar checkers. CALICO Journal, : Burth, H. P. (2016). The contribution of service-learning programs to the promotion of civic engagement and political participation: A critical evaluation. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 15(1), 58-66. : Case, S. (2007). Reconfiguring and realigning the assessment feedback processes for an undergraduate criminology degree. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 285-299. : Channell, J. (1999). Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 38-55). Oxford: Oxford University Press. : Cimiano, P. (2006). Ontology learning and population from text, algorithms, evaluation and applications. Nueva York: Springer. : Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse. The language of time, cause and evaluation. Londres: Continuum. : Conrad, S. & Biber, D. (2001). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. En S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 56-73). Oxford: Oxford University Press . : Coupland, N. & Jaworski, A. (2004). Sociolinguistic perspectives on metalanguage: Reflexivity, evaluation and ideology. En N. Coupland, A. Jaworski & D. Galasinski (Eds.), Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives (pp. 15-51). Berlín: Mouton de Gruyter. : Crossley, S., Varne, L., Roscoe, R. & McNamara, D. (2013). Using automated indices of cohesion to evaluate an intelligent tutoring system and an automated writing evaluation system. Proceedings 16th International Conference AIED, Memphis, TN, USA. : D' Odorico, L., Carubbi, S., Salerni, N. & Calvo, V. (2001). Vocabulary development in italian children: A longitudinal evaluation of quantitative and qualitative aspects. Journal of Child Language, 28, 351-372. : Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: The power of the bottom over the top. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 233-241. : Dowden, T., Pittaway, Sh., Yost, H. & McCarthy, R. (2013). Students’ perceptions of written feedback in teacher education: Ideally feedback is a continuing two-way communication that encourages progress. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 349-362. : Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, interaction, evaluation. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins. : Ferré, G. (2010). Timing relationships between speech and co-verbal gestures in spontaneous French. En Proceedings of Language Resources and Evaluation, Workshop on Multimodal Corpora, pp. 86-91. : Fink, E. (2004). Automatic evaluation and selection of problem-solving methods: Theory and experiments. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 16(2), 73-105. : Foltz, P., Gilliam, S. & Kendall, S. (2000). Supporting content-based feedback in on-line writing evaluation with LSA. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 111-128. : García-Cumbreras, M., García-Vega, M., Martínez-Santiago, F. & Peréa-Ortega, J. (2010). SINAI at WEPS-3: Online Reputation Management. In 2nd Web People Search Evaluation Workshop (WePS 2010). CLEF 2010 Conference. : García-Miguel, J. M., González Domínguez F. & Vaamonde G. (2010). ADESSE. A Database with Syntactic and Semantic Annotation of a Corpus of Spanish. Ponencia presentada en Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 1903-1910). Valletta, Malta. : Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359-375. : Ghiasinejad, S. & Golden, R. (2002). An empirical evaluation of the AUTOCODER system for automatic semantic coding of children summarization data. Poster presentado en the 12th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Chicago, Estados Unidos de Norteamérica. : Giles, H. (1971). Patterns of evaluation to R. P., South Welsh and Somerset accented speech. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 280-281. : Haddington, P. (2007). Stancetaking as an Interactional Activity: Challenging the prior speaker. En R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse Subjectivity, Interaction, Evaluation (pp. 253-282). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins. : Hernández-Domínguez, L., Ratté, S., Sierra-Martínez, G. & Roche-Bergua, A. (2018). Computer-based evaluation of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment patients during a picture description task. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 10, 260-268. : Heylings, D. J. A. & Tariq, V. N. (2001). Reflection and feedback on learning: A strategy for undergraduate research project work. Assessment & evaluation in Higher education, 26(2), 153-164. : Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan . : Huettig, F., Rommers, J. & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta psychologica, 137(2), 151-171. : Hughes, C. (2009). Assessment as text production: Drawing on systemic functional linguistics to frame the design and analysis of assessment tasks. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(5), 553-563. DOI: 10.1080/02602930802187316 : Hunston, S. & Sinclair, J. (2000). A local grammar of evaluation. En S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 74-101). Oxford: Oxford University Press. : Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. : Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. : Hunston, S. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In Ghadessy, M. (Ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice (pp. 57-73). London: Pinter Publishers. : Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 191-218). London: Routledge. : Hyland, K. (2002). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. En J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115-130). Londres: Longman. : Lin, Ch. & Hovy, E. (2003). Automatic evaluation of summaries using n-gram co-occurrence statistics. En Actas del 2003 Language Technology Conference, Edmonton, Canadá . : Lin, Ch. (2004). ROUGE: A Package for Automatic Evaluation of Summaries. En actas del Workshop on Text Summarization Branches Out, Post-Conference Workshop of ACL 2004, Barcelona, España. : Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418-442. : Macken–Horarik, M. & Martin, J.R. (2003). Text, 23, Special Issue. Negotiating heteroglossia: Social perspectives on evaluation. New York: M. de Gruyter. : Martin, J. & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation, appraisal in English. Londres/Nueva York: Palgrave Macmillan. : Martin, J. (2000). Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English. Em S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press. : Martin, J. (2004). Sense and sensibility: Texturing evaluation. En J. Foley (Ed.), Language, education and discourse: Functional approaches (pp. 270-304). London: Continuum. : Martin, J. R. & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave. : Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. En S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp.142-175). Oxford: OUP. : Martin, J. R. (2002). Blessed are the peacemakers: Reconciliation and evaluation. En C. Candlin (Ed.), Research and Practice in Professional Discourse (pp.187-227). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press. : Martin, J. R. y White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. Nueva York: Palgrave Macmillan. : Martin, J.R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press. : McCroskey, J., Richmond, V., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. & Barraclough, R. (1995). A cross-cultural and multi-behavioral analysis of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 44, 281-291. : McGaghie, W. (1991). Professional competence evaluation. Educational Researcher, Jan-Feb, 3-9. : McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., Cai, Z. & Graesser, A. (2014). Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . : Mertens, D. (2005). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage. : Mitchell, D. C. (1984). An evaluation of subject-paced reading tasks and other methods of investigating immediate processes in reading. En D. E. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.), New Methods in Reading Comprehension Research (pp. 69-89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. : Moreno Sandoval, A. & Guirao, J. M. (2006). Morphosyntactic tagging of the Spanish C-ORAL-ROM corpus: Methodology, tools and evaluation. En Y. Kawaguchi, S. Zaima & T. Takagaki (Eds.), Spoken Language Corpus and Linguistic Informatics (pp. 199-218). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins. : Munday, J. (2012a). Evaluation in translation: Critical points in decision making. Abingdon y Nueva York: Routledge. : Murphy, K. & Barry, S. (2016). Feed-forward: Students gaining more from assessment via deeper engagement in video-recorded presentations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41, 213-227. : Nazar, R. & Renau, I. (2016). A taxonomy of Spanish nouns, a statistical algorithm to generate it and its implementation in open source code. Ponencia presentada en el 10 th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16). European Language : Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback in mass higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517. : Nicol, D., Thomson, A. & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122. : Orsmond, P., Merry, S. & Reiling, K. (2004). Undergraduate project work: Can directed tutor support enhance skill development? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(5), 625-641. : Ostovar-Namaghi, S. A. (2006). Language teachers' evaluation of curriculum change: A qualitative study. The Qualitative Report, 22(2), 391-409. : Padró, L. & Stanilovsky, E. (2012). FreeLing 3.0: Towards Wider Multilinguality. Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. Turkey: Istanbul. : Padró, L., Collado, M., Reese, S., Lloberes, M. & Castellón, I. (2010). FreeLing 2.1: Five years of open-source language processing tools. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10), 931-936. : Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T. & Zhu, W. (2001). BLEU: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. Technical Report RC22176 (W0109-022), IBM Research Division, Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York, U.S.A. : Pineda, L., Castellanos, H., Cuétara, J., Galescu, L., Juárez, J., Llisterri, L., Pérez, P. & Villaseñor, L. (2010). The Corpus DIMEx100: Transcription and evaluation.Language Resources and Evaluation, 44(4), 347-370. : Pinto, D. (2008). On Clustering and Evaluation of Narrow Domain Short-Text Corpora. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain. : Plass, J. (1998). Design and evaluation of the user interface of foreign language multimedia software: A cognitive approach. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 40-53. : Popović, M. & Ney, H. (2006). POS-based word reorderings for statistical machine translation. Proceedings of the 5^th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Genoa, Italy. : Ramakrishnan, G., Prithviraj, B. & Bhattacharyya, P. (2004). A gloss-centered algorithm for disambiguation. Proceedings of SENSEVAL-3: Third International Workshop on the Evaluation of Systems for the Semantic Analysis of Text. : Read, J. & Carroll, J. (2012). Annotating expressions of Appraisal in English. Language Resources and Evaluation, 46, 421-447. : Sabaj, O., González, C., Varas, G. & Pina-Stranger, A. (2015). A new form for the evaluation of scientific articles under peer review. Revista Argos, 32(62), 119-129. : Sato, H. (2012). A search tool for FrameNet Constructicon. In Proceedings of the 8^ th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 1655-1658). : Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1983). The development of evaluation, diagnostic and remedial capabilities in children’s composing. En M. Martlew (Dir.), The psychology of written language, Development and educational perspectives (pp. 67-96). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. : Scheibman, J. (2007). Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversation. En R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse Subjectivity, Interaction, Evaluation (pp. 111-138). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins. : Semel, E., Secord, W. & Wiig, E. (2013). CELF-4: Spanish Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4. Pearson. : Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 343-357. : Stewart, D. (2010). Semantic Prosody. A Critical Evaluation. London: Routledge. : Telljohann, H., Hinrichs, E. W. & Kübler, S. (2004). The TüBa-D/Z Treebank – Annotating German with a context-free backbone. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LR EC), Lisbon, Portugal. : The statistical module of Atenea relies on the BiLingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU) algorithm (Papineni, Roukos, Ward & Zhu, 2001). Basically, it looks for n-gram coincidences between the student's answer and the references. Its pseudocode is as follows: : Thompson, G. & Alba-Juez, L. (Eds.) (2014). Evaluation in context. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins . : Thompson, G. & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford, Nueva York: Oxford University Press. : Thompson, G. & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 365–382. : Thompson, G. & Zhou, J. (2001). Evaluation and organization in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. En S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 121-140). Oxford: Oxford University Press . : Thompson, G. (2014). Affect and emotion, target-value mismatches, and Russian dolls: Refining the appraisal model. En G. Thompson & L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Evaluation in Context (pp. 47-66). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins. : Todd, M., Bannister, P. & Clegg, S. (2004). Independent inquiry and the undergraduate dissertation: Perceptions and experiences of final‐year social science students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(3), 335-355. : Van Rijn, H., Kononowicz, T. W., Meck, W. H., Ng, K. K. & Penney, T. B. (2011). Contingent negative variation and its relation to time estimation: a theoretical evaluation. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 5, 91. : Voorhees, E. & Harman, D. (2005). TREC: Experiments and evaluation in information retrieval. Nueva York: MIT Press. : Walker, M (2009). An investigation into written comments on assignments: Do students find them usable? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 67-78. : Wehrli, E., Seretan, V., Nerima, L. & Russo, L. (2009). Collocations in a rule-based MT system: A case study evaluation of their translation adequacy. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Machine Translation. Barcelona: Spain. : White, P. (2002). Appraisal: The language of evaluation and stance. En J. Verschueren, J. Östman, J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1-27). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. : White, P.P.R. (2002). Appraisal: The language of attitudinal evaluation and intersubjective stance [on line]. Retrieved from: [185]www.grammatics.com/Appraisal : Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sánchez, C. A., Ash, I. & Hemmerich, J. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1060-1106. : Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73-87. : Yerva, S. R., Zoltán, M. & Aberer, K. (2010). It Was Easy, when Apples and Blackberries Were only Fruits. In 2nd Web People Search Evaluation Workshop (WePS 2010). Padua, Italy: CLEF 2010 Conference. : Zipitria, I., Elorriaga, J., Arruate, A. & de IIarraza, A. (2004). From human to automatic summary evaluation. En Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring System, Maceió, Brasil. : de Marneffe, M. C., MacCartney, B. & Manning, C. D. (2006). Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. Ponencia presentada en el 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Genova, Italia. : Ädel, A. (2005). On the boundaries between evaluation and metadiscourse. En E. Tognini-Bonelli & G. Del Lungo Camiciotti (Eds.), Strategies in academic discourse (pp. 153-162). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.