MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098089244 · doi:10.5539/elt.v5n7p25

The Relationship between Willingness to Communicate and Multiple Intelligences among Learners of English as a Foreign Language

2012· article· en· W2098089244 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Afsaneh Mohammadzadeh, Manoochehr Jafarigohar

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillingness to communicatePsychologyForeign languageEnglish as a foreign languageScale (ratio)Mathematics educationSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study was conducted to examine the existence of any possible relationship between willingness to communicate (WTC) and multiple intelligences (MI) among over 500 EFL learners. The study also investigated the effect of gender on the relationship between these two constructs. The data for the research were gathered using a three-part questionnaire which was presented in the students’ native language. A revised version of Gardner’s MI measure was used to assess the participants’ intelligences. Students’ WTC was measured through a twenty-item WTC scale. In addition, a biodata questionnaire was used to get some demographic information about the learners. The findings revealed that the MI profile of learners of English has a significant correlation with their willingness to participate in L2 communication and that the link between MI and WTC is affected by gender.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207