MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895641073 · doi:10.1515/glochi-2018-0016

Communicating emotions in L2 Chinese: Talk in the dorm during study abroad

2018· article· en· W2895641073 on OpenAlexaff
Qian Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Chinese · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepertoirePsychologyMandarin ChineseContext (archaeology)SituatedAgency (philosophy)Sociocultural evolutionExpression (computer science)NarrativeDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyLinguisticsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Communication of emotion is at the heart of human interaction. For second language (L2) learners, the ability to communicate one’s emotion is crucial, especially in the context of study abroad when they are in frequent contact with native speakers. The aim of the case study is to investigate how an American sojourner Puppies and her Chinese roommate Kiki (both pseudonyms) participated in conversational narratives in the dormitory to construct emotions, and how the contextualized interaction facilitated Puppies’ development of a linguistic repertoire for the expression of emotion in Chinese. Informed by Vygotskian sociocultural theory, the study followed the genetic method in tracing the history of Puppies’ Chinese emotional repertoire across the semester, thereby elucidating the language developmental processes in the situated oral interaction. Audio-recorded everyday interaction in the dorm is triangulated by Puppies’ responses to the pre- and post-Mandarin Awareness Interview and interviews with Puppies and Kiki. Analysis revealed that the contextualized dorm talk provided abundant L2 resources for Puppies to develop a L2 emotional repertoire, especially fear-related emotion expressions. A discrepancy in the product of development as gleaned from the Mandarin Awareness Interview, and the process of development as seen in the naturally occurring dorm talk, suggests that Puppies’ use or non-use of local emotional expressions could be mediated by her partial understanding of the forms and the speech style and identity she wished to assume.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.416 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal ChineseSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207