WILLINGNESS TO COMMUNICATE, SOCIAL SUPPORT, ANDLANGUAGE-LEARNING ORIENTATIONS OF IMMERSION STUDENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Willingness to communicate (WTC) has been defined as the intention to initiate communication, given a choice. It was hypothesized that orientations toward language learning as well as social support would influence students' WTC in a second language. Grade 9 students of L2 French immersion, living in a relatively unilingual Anglophone community, participated in the study. WTC was measured in each of four skill areas: speaking, writing, reading, and comprehension. Five orientations or reasons for studying an L2 were examined: travel, job related, friendship with Francophones, personal knowledge, and school achievement. Results showed that endorsement of all five orientations for language learning was positively correlated with WTC both inside and outside the classroom. Results also showed that social support, particularly from friends, was associated with higher levels of WTC outside the classroom but played less of a role inside the classroom. The support of friends was also associated with higher orientations for travel and for friendship with Francophones. Results are discussed in terms of an emerging situated model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".