Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to Garcia (2009), translanguaging is “… the act performed by bilinguals of accessing different linguistic features or various modes of what are described as autonomous languages, in order to maximize communicative potential” (p. 140). Therefore, it is more about communication than language use. Bilinguals tend to employ their linguistic repertoire as an integrated communication system. In the context of this study, senior university bilingual students majoring in business in Saudi Arabia are usually competent in their mother tongue (Arabic) and in their additional language (English) due to the nature of business. They are keen to maintain their ability in English as far as possible as they consider themselves “long-term English learners”. Today, Saudi Arabia is increasingly building bridges to the outside world and clearly proficiency in English is one such bridge, allowing Saudi Arabia to integrate with English-speaking countries. Stakeholders in Saudi Arabia are now seeking English-proficient applicants for jobs, regardless of their speciality, more so than previously. This has become the norm in both the public and private sectors. However, bilingual university students majoring in business still tend to employ their mother tongue regardless of their proficiency in English. This may indicate their views and feelings with regard to the need to be bilingual in any future work context. This study focuses on senior business students at Majmaah University. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the students (n=14) and their instructor (n=1). This paper reports on the students’ attitudes towards bilingual activities, specifically task-related discussions, and the impact on their communicative repertoire from their 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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".