MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992279460 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13680

Willingness to Communicate and Second Language Speech Fluency: A Complex Dynamic Systems Perspective

2019· dissertation· en· W2992279460 on OpenAlexaff
Shahin Nematizadeh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluencyPerspective (graphical)Computer scienceAttractorCognitive psychologyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of complex dynamic systems theory (CDST) in second language (L2) research has recently gained ground, instigating a growing series of studies investigating the complex and dynamic nature of individual difference (ID) variables, such as WTC (willingness to communicate). Fewer dynamically informed investigations, however, have targeted L2 performance constructs, like speech fluency. Both WTC and L2 fluency presumably influence communications in a L2 and have been argued to retain cognitive and affective bases Despite these, little has been done to address such dynamics, particularly from a complex dynamic systems (CDS) perspective. To bridge this gap, the present exploratory study employed an idiodynamic methodology, informed by CDST, to monitor WTC and fluency changes during three-minute, mainly monologic speaking tasks, with an emphasis on the dynamics of change in interaction with temporal measures of speech, including mean length of runs (MLRs), speech rate (SR), and pause phenomena. An investigation of 882 cases of interplay between WTC changes and fluent/dysfluent speech samples revealed an existing interaction, which took on four different forms. Results also indicated that the interaction is of a dynamic one, and is mostly two-way, direct and indirect, unpredictable, and interdependently multilayered. Further, both variables as well as their interplay shared and exhibited such properties as dynamicity, nonlinearity, interconnectedness, and formation of attractor states, all of which are characteristic of complex dynamic systems.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207