A Survey on Freshmen’s Perception of Biblical Knowledge in Intercultural Communication
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, research on the Bible is mainly confined to literature review or argumentation. This article attempts to get a general idea of learners’ conception of biblical culture in developing intercultural communicative competence (hereafter referred to as ICC), as well as the current situation of their biblical knowledge. Data analyses in the survey have reported evidence for the positive and upward tendency among the respondents, indicating much interest and willingness to spend more extracurricular time in learning English. This survey also shows that most respondents agreed to the important role of western culture, but they did not fully perceive the important role of biblical knowledge in learning the English language. In addition, data analysis has led to the conclusion that respondents had grasped less biblical knowledge than expected. This explains the possibility and necessity to promote this positive situation. Then, some pedagogical improvements were addressed on how to affect teaching practice by integrating biblical knowledge into teaching materials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it