MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chinese Learners’ Communication Strategies Research: a Case Study at Shandong Jiaotong University

2010· article· en· W1917338085 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dong Yang, Fangpeng Gai

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyLibrary sciencePedagogyArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To some extent, what Chinese learners need is communication strategies, which can help them solve problems they may encounter in actual communication. The paper sets out to investigate 89 Chinese learners’ communication strategies at Shandong Jiaotong University and the roles it plays in second language acquisition. After a review of current literature on communication strategies, the author conducts investigation on communication strategies of Chinese learners of English, analyzes the results of the investigation and summarizes major points of communication strategies and proposes suggestions for language learning and teaching. Key words: Chinese Learners; Communication Strategies Resume: Dans une certaine mesure, ce dont les etudiants chinois ont besoin sont des strategies de communication, qui peuvent les aider a resoudre des problemes qu'ils rencontreraient dans une communication reelle. L'article vise a etudier les strategies de communication de 89 etudiants chinois a l'Universite Jiaotong de Shandong et le role qu'elles jouent dans l'acquisition d'une deuxieme langue. Apres une revue des documents actuels sur les strategies de communication, l'auteur mene une enquete sur les strategies de communication des etudiants chinois de l'anglais, analyse les resultats de l'enquete, resume les points principaux des strategies de communication et propose des suggestions pour l'apprentissage et l'enseignement des langues. Mots-Cles: etudiants chinois; strategies de communication

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)0.004
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207