Language Use in Computer Mediated-Communication and Users’ Social Identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between language use in computer-mediated communication and the social identity of the user. The data were collected by surveying 298 Saudi bilingual speakers who are familiar with Arabizi, a blend of Latin characters and Arabic numerals to transliterate Arabic sounds, and then analyzed quantitatively by running tests for statistical confidence in order to determine differences in perceptions between young adults (ages 15-25 years) and middle-aged adults (ages 26-50 years). According to the findings of this study, English is the dominant language among most of the young adults surveyed, and when they do use Arabic, they use Arabizi because of its flexibility, compatibility with modern technology, and its acceptance among people of their age and sociocultural backgrounds. On the other hand, most middle-aged adults surveyed here tend to use Arabic, as they believe that they should show their loyalty to their origin. The results of the study demonstrate a mutual relationship between language use in computer-mediated communication and the user’s social identity, as language is used both to reflect and co-construct that identity.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".