MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2542582180 · doi:10.3968/8813

Interactive Etiquette Activities and Work Dimensions in Secondary Language Learners: A Study

2016· article· en· W2542582180 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnglish Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtiquetteCode (set theory)PsychologyClass (philosophy)SociologySocial psychologyAestheticsLinguisticsEpistemologyComputer scienceArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Etiquette in simpler words is defined as good behavior which distinguishes human beings from animals. Human Being is a social animal and it is really important for him to behave in an appropriate way. Etiquette refers to behave in a socially responsible way. Etiquettes is a code of behavior that delineates expectations for social behavior according to contemporary conventional norms within a society, social class, or group. The French word etiquette, literally signifying a tag or label, was used in a modern sense in English around 1750. Etiquette has changed and evolved over the years. It is essential for an individual to behave in a responsible manner acceptable to the society. People around us must not feel embarrassed by our behaviour.One should not behave irrationally or illogically in public.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.305 · 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