MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105528074 · doi:10.1093/applin/amq037

A Dynamic System Approach to Willingness to Communicate: Developing an Idiodynamic Method to Capture Rapidly Changing Affect

2010· article· en· W2105528074 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter D. MacIntyre, J. J. Legatto

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Linguistics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorCape Breton University
KeywordsWillingness to communicateAffect (linguistics)PsychologyVocabularyAnxietyVariation (astronomy)Consistency (knowledge bases)Social psychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceLinguisticsCommunicationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Willingness to communicate (WTC) can be conceptualized as changing from moment to moment, as opportunities for second-language communication arise. In this study we present an idiodynamic methodology for studying rapid changes in WTC. The methodology consists of recording responses from six young adult, female speakers to second-language communication tasks, their self-ratings of changes in WTC during those tasks, and reporting of their experience and attributions for fluctuations in WTC. The role of stable personal characteristics of the speakers is taken into account, as are observations made by an observer during the respondents’ speech. Conceptualizing WTC as a dynamic system allows for an examination of the variation in WTC over time. The results show both consistency and variation in WTC even among a relatively homogeneous sample of speakers. Searching memory for vocabulary was identified as a key process affecting WTC, though it is argued that other factors (including language anxiety) are also operating to affect WTC. After concluding that WTC can be seen as a dynamic system, limitations of the methodology and future research directions are discussed.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations442
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied LinguisticsSame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207