Attitudes towards Using Standard Arabic among Academic Staff at Balqa Applied University/Center in Jordan: A Sociolinguistic Study
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
The course of this study aims to investigate the attitudes of Balqa Applied University academic staff towards using Standard Arabic as the language of instruction at the university and in their social gatherings. The academic staff attitudes reflect the status of Arabicization course of action as a language planning activity among institutions of higher education in Jordan in light of competing challenges between pro-Arabicization group and anti-Arabicization group. The participants of the academic staff cover four faculties, Engineering, Agriculture, Human Sciences, and Planning. The findings of the study confirmed the passion for Standard Arabic as a highly elevated language. The respondents encourage the use of Standard Arabic in academic context in general and in conferences held at local and national levels. Standard Arabic is also preferable among other Arabs’ academic interaction. However, the respondents are rather unenthusiastic pertaining to using Standard Arabic in social interaction. In light of the findings of the study, it is recommended that the administration of higher academic institutions in Jordan assume an effective role in promoting Arabicization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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