MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024198548 · doi:10.5430/elr.v3n1p72

'A Tart and Bitter Feeling of Jealousy and Remorse’: Appraising Subjectivity and Cultural Dimensions in Hong Kong and Indian Readings of an English Poem

2014· article· en· W2024198548 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C. A. DeCoursey, Shilpagauri Prasad Ganpule

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotions and Moral Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemorseFeelingJealousySubjectivityPsychologySocial psychologyCultural diversityHofstede's cultural dimensions theoryCurriculumPoetrySociologyLinguisticsEpistemologyAnthropologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

English has become a global language. Chinese and Indian tertiary students comprise a majority of global English users, and a significant proportion of highly-proficient graduates in the knowledge economy. World Englishes authors are included in the curricula of both nations. This study analysed data from 98 Indian and 92 Hong Kong tertiary readers of Tagore’s ‘The Golden Boat’. Data was analysed using Appraisal analysis to compare subjective attitudes. Appraisal analysis uses computational methods to produce a detailed analysis of attitudes in three systems: emotion, judgment and appreciation. Content analysis was completed, using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, to detail differences between the two groups. Cultural dimensions are a long-standing, validated research paradigm based in psychometric data, and are widely used. Examples of students’ comments explore similarities in emotional responses, and generalisations to self and others. The study indicates cultural specificities in the tendency to generalise literature to personal experience, and in specific areas of subjective attitudes. Differences were found in the specific cultural meanings used to explain these, by the two groups. Indian responses realise cultural values stressing overarching philosophical meanings, where Hong Kong responses focus on task orientation, particularly reward. Implications are noted for second-language literary readings, tertiary institutions and graduates.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Linguistics ResearchSame topicEmotions and Moral BehaviorFrench-language works237,207