On the Correlation between Iranian EFL Learners’ Use of Metacognitive Listening Strategies and Their Emotional Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The researchers in the current study were after gauging the would-be correlation between emotional intelligence (and its subcomponents), on the one hand and the use of listening metacognitive strategies by academic EFL learners on the other. The study at hand benefited from 72 female and 40 male university students from Urmia University, Urmia Azad University and Salams Azad University. The main instruments used in the study were Bar-On's emotional intelligence inventory and listening metacognitive strategies use questionnaire. Using Pearson correlation coefficient, the researchers came up with a significant amount of correlation between the use of listening metacognitive strategies and total emotional intelligence score as well as the learners' scores on the subscales of emotional intelligence (Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, adaptability, and general mood), with the mere exception of stress management. Moreover, the relationship between all the 5 subscales of emotional intelligence and the use of monitoring strategies, and the relationship between interpersonal skills and evaluating strategy were found to be significant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".