MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W134094609 · doi:10.26522/vp.v10i2.838

Langage corporel et interculturalité. Une étude de cas à Taiwan

2013· article· fr· W134094609 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Serge Dreyer

Bibliographic record

VenueVoix Plurielles · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Language Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Council
KeywordsMartial artsHumanitiesSociologyLinguisticsArtPhilosophyVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le langage corporel est souvent le parent pauvre en didactique du français langue étrangère que ce soit dans les recherches théoriques ou en classe de langue. Il constitue pourtant une sérieuse source d’interférences dans les situations de communication interculturelle. Cet article traite d’une approche originale du langage corporel en classe de français en s’appuyant sur les arts de la scène. La pratique du clown, du mime, la technique de déambulation en défilé de mode et quelques exercices de taiji quan (un art martial chinois) sont sollicités dans le cadre d’un cours visant à entrainer des apprenants de Taiwan à l’exercice du discours en public dans une perspective du langage corporel. Body Language and Cross-cultural Studies: A case study in Taiwan Body language is often neglected in theory and practice in the field of teaching French as a foreign language. This happens in spite of its importance in the many aspects of miscommunication between people of different cultures. This article deals with an original approach of body language by using various stage arts in the class of French. Exercises of clown, mime, catwalking and taiji quan (a Chinese martial art) are used to train students from Taiwan in the practice of oral discourse while focusing on body language.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVoix PluriellesSame topicFrench Language Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207