MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104206215 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v2n1p79

Gender and Politeness in a Foreign Language Academic Context

2012· article· en· W2104206215 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

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitenessPsychologyArabicContext (archaeology)Politeness theoryLinguisticsTest (biology)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theories and strategies of politeness and impoliteness are drawn upon to investigate underlying factors that might contribute to an understanding of differences among students and teachers towards politeness strategies. Classroom politeness in the present study is operationally defined according to various strategies or behaviors that the students in question draw upon in reacting to different situations. The study explores through a survey and a discourse completion test the degree of politeness the genders in an L1 Arabic context indicate to certain situations. Results show that the possible causes for the 'misunderstandings' and any perceived differences in 'impoliteness' between the genders are more 'cultural' rather than that of 'impoliteness' on the part of the students. Recommendations are made for program coordinators and teachers to deal with this issue in EFL classrooms along with future needed research.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.336
Teacher spread0.277 · 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