Emotional Intelligence, Linguistic Intelligence, and their Relevance to Speaking Anxiety of EFL Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was conducted to investigate any possible correlation between the speech anxiety and EFL learners‟ Emotional Intelligence and Linguistic Intelligence. The selected skills of EI in this study were interpersonal and stress management. The participants of the present research were 55 EFL learners both male and female who were selected randomly among the senior and junior learners of the Islamic, Salmas branch Azad University. Three questionnaires were used to measure the participants‟ speech anxiety, EI, and LI. The first questionnaire applied was Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS). Among which the construct of speech anxiety was taken into consideration in this study. The second and the third questionnaires were Baron‟s EI and LI test respectively. The results of the study indicated that there was a negative correlation between the speech anxiety and total EI. The results showed negative correlations between the variables i.e. speech anxiety with stress management and stress tolerance. However, no correlations were observed amid the speech anxiety with impulse control, interpersonal, empathy, interpersonal relationship and social responsibility. The results also found that there was a negative relationship between the speech anxiety and LI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".