Willingness to Communicate in a Second Language
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
Past research has focused primarily on second language (L2) acquisition as a tool for promoting intercultural communication. The social context model, for example, stresses the importance of contact, L2 confidence, and identity in acquiring a L2. The willingness to communicate (WTC) model, however, emerged from a concern with the functions of L2 use. This study combines these two models to consider both contextual and individual difference variables in L2 use. Participants were 130 Anglophone (majority) and 248 Francophone (minority) students attending a Canadian bilingual university. Path analyses supported a model in which context, individual, and social factors were all important determinants of L2 use, although patterns of relations differed depending on the ethnolinguistic vitality of the group. The importance of subjective norms was further confirmed as moderators of the relationship between L2 confidence and identity among Francophones. Results are discussed within the context of current models of intergroup communication.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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