MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117390062 · doi:10.47678/cjhe.v35i4.183519

Anxiety and Perceived English and French Language Competence of Education Students

2005· article· en· W2117390062 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Cameron Montgomery, Thomas W. Spalding

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Higher Education · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)French immersionAnxietyAP French LanguagePsychologyFrenchHeritage languagePerceptionFirst languageForeign languageEnglish languageLanguage proficiencyPedagogyMathematics educationLinguisticsHumanitiesSocial psychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examined manifest anxiety and perceptions of English and French language competence among Anglophone (n = 35), Francophone (n = 29), and Mixed-heritage (n = 34) elementary education (60%) and secondary education (40%) students (80% female) in their second, third, or fourth year of study at the Faculté Saint Jean (University of Alberta). Participants assessed their language competence differently in English and French. Francophone and Mixed-heritage students felt equally competent in the two languages, but Anglophone students reported much higher language competence in English. Manifest anxiety and self-assessments of language competence were related only among the Anglophone group, with high levels of manifest anxiety associated with both low self-assessments of French language competence and high self- assessments of English language competence—the two being correlated with each other.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Higher EducationSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207