MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2475168131 · doi:10.5430/elr.v5n2p57

Investigating Code Switching between Arabic/English Bilingual Speakers

2016· article· en· W2475168131 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eman Saleh Akeel

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCode-switchingArabicConversationLinguisticsPerspective (graphical)Context (archaeology)Code (set theory)Modern Standard ArabicNeuroscience of multilingualismComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceHistoryProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates code switching in Arabic/English bilingual speech. The data analysed in this paper is an interview between two female Arabic participants in the context of hair and skin care. It took place in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, where Arabic is the official language and English is used as a second language. The paper studies the occurrences of code switching from Arabic to English in the conversation from a sociolinguistic perspective. A conversational analysis is carried out in an attempt to understand functions of code switching based on the participants' turns. The findings show that switching from Arabic to English is overwhelmingly utilized in the interview. It is argued that code switching occurs mostly in elaboration. Additional functions of code switching by speakers include grabbing the audience attention, emphasizing points, and showing knowledge of topic-related terminologies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Linguistics ResearchSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207