Perception of Learners Towards Monolingualism, Bilingualism and Multi-Language Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monolingualism is defined as state of having control over the use of one language. Bilingualism means having control over the use of two languages and multi-lingualism is defined having control over the use of more than two languages. The purpose of this study is to make a comparison of the learners’ perceptions towards monolingualism, bilingualism and multilingualism. The study was done in year of 2018. The study was done by applying questionnaires to the preparation faculty at International Hoca Ahmet Yesewi University and Balıkesir University respondents. Totally, there are 196 respondents from Yesewi University and 172 respondents from Balıkesir University. Both BAU and AYU respondents disagree that people who speak a language best are those who know one language rather than two or more. They also both agree that learner should try not to use their first language while learning a new language. Both BAU and AYU respondents agree that learning another language is important because it allows them to be more at ease with people who speaks that language. However, AYU respondents have a stronger positive attitude than BAU respondents.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".