MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970815700 · doi:10.31849/elsya.v1i1.2538

Sociolinguistic Influence in the Use of English as a Second Language (ESL) Classroom: Seeing from Onovughe's (2012) Perspective

2019· article· en· W2970815700 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lana Hasanah, Siska Pradina, Almira Hadita, Wella Cisilya Putri

Bibliographic record

VenueELSYA Journal of English Language Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Class (philosophy)SociologySociolinguisticsPopulationPedagogyGovernment (linguistics)Mathematics educationQualitative researchPsychologyLinguisticsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to provide a brief overview and review of the research conducted by Onovughe (2012) under the title Sociolinguistic Input and English as Second Language Classrooms published by the Canadian Center for Science and Education. This article also intended to provide a brief review of the sociolinguistic influences of the use of the second most significant language in the class. Using qualitative descriptive analysis, this study managed to see that OGO’s research used survey within a population of all middle school students in the Akure Ondo Regional Government, Nigeria (n = 240 students). Of the five existing hypotheses, the findings revealed that parents’ occupation is a significant sociolinguistic influence on the use of English among middle school students, followed by gender, age, religion, and classes. This current paper evaluated how Onovughe’s research is represented in his article. Results reveal the strengeths, weaknesses, and the flaws of the article.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueELSYA Journal of English Language StudiesSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207