MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982477418 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v9n6p249

The Relationship Between Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety and Background Variables in a Multilingual Context

2019· article· en· W2982477418 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elias Bensalem

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorthern Border University
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PsychologyForeign language anxietyAnxietyForeign languageSelf-efficacyScale (ratio)English as a foreign languageSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper sets out to investigate the potential correlation between foreign language classroom anxiety (FLCA) and four background variables (gender, self-efficacy, self-perceived proficiency, and experience abroad) among multilingual EFL college-level students in Saudi Arabia. A group of 191 participants (80 females, 111 males) took part in the study by answering an adapted version of the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS; Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986) as well as the Foreign Language Self-Efficacy Scale (Torres & Turner, 2016). The statistical analyses revealed that participants experienced low to moderate rates of FLCA with females exhibiting higher levels of FLCAS than males. Statistical analyses showed that gender, self- efficacy and English self-perceived proficiency were significant predictors of FLCA in a multilingual context. In addition, experience abroad was not correlated with FLCA.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.299
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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207