A Model of Situational Willingness to Communicate (WTC) in the Study Abroad Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of structural modeling has helped to explain constructs leading to Willingness to Communicate (WTC) in L1 and L2 contexts. When WTC was conceptualized as a trait in the L1, more personality variables were used in models. When WTC moved into the realm of second language, researchers still used trait measurements to explain the construct, along with motivation and other communication-related variables. More recently, researchers recognize that WTC is also a situational variable and some researchers have created measurement tools accordingly. This study focuses on 67 students studying on a pre-university academic course in English and tests a structural model using classroom constructs as they are deemed the most important for communication in the classroom to predict WTC. Also, the model uses a teacher score to measure the relationship between self-report WTC and actual classroom communication. The model was found to have reasonable levels of fit, showing the importance of classroom variables in situational WTC in the second language context.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".