The Implementation of Communication Strategies to Exchange and Negotiate Meanings in a Simulation of Job Interview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students of English as a foreign language find it difficult to initiate a talk and exchange meanings in an interaction. They find it hard to break the iceberg and act by asking, commanding and answering to make the speakers or listeners’ intention fulfilled. As such they do not have medium to exchange experiences. The present study aims to explain the way meanings are negotiated and exchanged in the implementation of communication strategies in a simulation of a job interview. The subjects of this qualitative study are students of Indonesian Vocational College. The object of the study is the students’ utterances in the interview. Functional semantic reinterpretation of turn-constructional units of conversation analysis is implemented to explain how the students exchange and negotiate meanings. The findings suggest that the realization of exchange and negotiation of meanings is influenced by moves assigned to speech functions classes and the types of meanings implemented in the act of production and comprehension of the whole communication. The subjects of the present study can be categorized into productive speakers. The students negotiate feelings and attitudes more than that of the content of the proposition.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".