Podcasting of Workplace Writing among Transitional Writers in Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies observe that workplace writing is unlike writing experiences of undergraduates at the university (Sidy, 1999). Workplace writing is influenced by professional documents. University writing classes often fail to prepare students for the workplace writing. The term of transitional writers in this context refers to undergraduates in their final semesters of diploma and degree courses that have undergone academic writing classes. It is imperative for transitional writers to be immersed in authentic workplace contexts which allow them to experience workplace writing genres with the guidance of communities of practice. Transitional writers learn to write to the expectations of their future employers which increase their proficiency in workplace writing. This authentic professional context is constructed using podcasting as a learning object to assist successful transfer of effective workplace written literacy as transitional writers need to have sufficient workplace written proficiency to cater to the workplace written literacy demands. This paper discusses the feasibility of using podcasts in promoting workplace writing among transitional writers. Key words: College writers; Podcasts; Feasibility; Workplace writing; Academic writing; Challenges; College writing; Transitional writers
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".