MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593550593 · doi:10.5430/elr.v6n1p58

A Case Study on the Relationship between Individual Differences and English Pragmatic Competence of Non-English-Major Chinese Postgraduates

2017· article· en· W2593550593 on OpenAlex
Caifen Chen

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

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)PsychologyPragmaticsThe InternetChinaMathematics educationPedagogySocial psychologyLinguisticsComputer sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of pragmatics, a lot of research has been done concerning the pragmatic failures committed by college students. Little research is oriented to the non-English-major postgraduates (NEMP). For that reason, this paper attempts to study the pragmatic competence of NEMP, especially the relationship between pragmatic competence and their individual differences, such as gender differences and differences among different majors, age and working experience. A questionnaire was administrated to 115 non-English-major postgraduates in East China University of Technology (ECUT) in China. The questionnaire consists of an English pragmatic competence test with 25 multiple choices, which was selectively taken from He Ziran’s study (1988). By using both quantitative and qualitative analysis, the study offers the following findings: the general level of NEMP’s pragmatic competence is quite low at present, but with their developing cultural awareness, they do a better job in sociopragmatic competence than that in pragmalinguistic competence; there are significant differences between different genders and their pragmatic competence, with the females’ pragmatic competence higher than males’, while the differences among majors, age and working experience are not so significant in the participants’ English pragmatic competence. The paper also offers some suggestions for postgraduates’ English teaching: using different teaching methods should be considered; Input of English pragmatic knowledge in proper contexts and making best use of Internet should be increased as well; the postgraduates’ individual differences should also be treated appropriately in English teaching.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.292
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.292
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.174 · 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