MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115185623 · doi:10.3138/cmlr.1152

Target-Language Community Involvement: Second-Language Linguistic Self-Confidence and Other Perceived Benefits

2012· article· en· W2115185623 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Kirsten M. Hummel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Council on LearningUniversité Laval
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologySelf-confidenceMedical educationSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: French native-speaking students (N = 20) enrolled in a university TESL program were asked to participate in a community service-learning project in an English-speaking minority community in Québec. Results from this qualitative study indicated that active community involvement led to strong perceptions of positive effects. The principal effects reported by participants included greater linguistic self-confidence along with the perception of having improved their second language (L2) skills, increased knowledge about their field of study (L2 teaching), and confirmation of their professional goals, personal satisfaction from helping young children and other community members, and to some extent, greater knowledge about the local English-speaking community. The results suggest that community service learning may have been an effective way to enhance L2 learning for the participants in this study, with particular effects on linguistic self-confidence, and might be appropriate in similar contexts in which opportunities for intergroup contact are not readily available.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantesSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207