Talking in Order to Learn: Willingness to Communicate and Intensive Language Programs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immersion and other intensive language programs produce both linguistic and non-linguistic outcomes. A principal non-linguistic outcome would be a willingness to communicate in the second language (L2), given the opportunity. Both increasing perceived competence and lowering anxiety help to foster a willingness to communicate. These variables are related to motivation for language learning and are expected to differ between immersion and non-immersion learners. Among university-level students, this study evaluates differences between immersion and non-immersion students in willingness to communicate, communication apprehension, perceived competence, and frequency of communicating. Also examined are elements of integrative motivation. Differences between immersion and non-immersion groups are observed in the communication-related variables, but not in motivation. Correlations among these variables also differ between the groups. Results are examined in terms of Skehan's notion of talking in order to learn and a model of L2 willingness to communicate
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it