MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1937449150 · doi:10.21810/sfuer.v6i.367

Non-Native English-Speaking Teachers’ Legitimacy Negotiation in North American ELT Classrooms

2013· article· en· W1937449150 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSFU Educational Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationLegitimacyAgency (philosophy)Identity (music)SociologySociocultural evolutionPower (physics)Gender studiesPedagogyPolitical scienceSocial scienceAnthropologyLawAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to examine the complexities of non-native English-speaking teachers’ (NNESTs’) legitimacy negotiation process in North American English language teaching (ELT) classrooms. This paper explores how NNESTs’ processes and outcomes of legitimacy negotiation can be impacted by unbalanced power relations, assigned-identity, and human agency. By drawing on various sociocultural theories, particularly power relations (Bourdieu, 1977; Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, and Cain 2001; Norton, 2000), identity (Norton, 2000; Harklau, 2000; Morita, 2004), and human agency (Canagarajah, 1999; Norton & Toohey, 2001; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001), the analysis examines how the three factors—unbalanced power relations, assigned identity and personal agency manifest themselves in NNESTs’ attempting to cross barriers erected by language, culture, and racial boundaries.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.400 · 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