The Socio-Cultural Factors Influencing Learners of Arabic in the Sultanate of Oman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the sociocultural factors influencing learners of Arabic as a foreign language in the Sultanate of Oman. A qualitative inquiry approach was adopted for the study, using in-depth interviewing, and students’ diaries to understand how the sociocultural context impact non-Arab learners of Arabic in the Sultanate of Oman. Twenty-two non-native learners of Arabic participated to describe their experience of learning Arabic with special emphasis on the Omani culture and social milieu. The findings of the study showed that these learners experienced three main sociocultural factors which affected their learning of Arabic in Oman. Specifically, it was found that these factors were associated with the lack of encouragement given to learning Arabic in the Sultanate of Oman, the characteristics of the Arabic language programs in the country, and finally difficulties in adjusting to the cultural differences. These factors were further divided into different sub-categories and these were analysed and discussed in detail. Studying the sociocultural circumstances elucidate the development and proficiency of foreign language acquisition from a new perspective.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".