Gender Differences in Using Apology Strategies in Jordanian Spoken Arabic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated apology strategies used in Jordanian spoken Arabic. The main purpose was to find whether gender plays a role in selecting apology strategies related to different situations. A modified version of Harb’s discourse questionnaire was employed for collecting the data. The participants included 20 males and 20 females. The data were codified and classified using Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP), by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984). Both qualitative and quantitative approach was used in analysing the collected data. The findings of the study demonstrate that there are more similarities than differences between females and males in the use of apology strategies. In addition, it was found that both groups tend to use multiple apology strategies in the same utterance; however, their strategies vary in frequency. The results demonstrated that there is no substantial quantitative difference in the use of apology strategies between Jordanian males and females. Further research employing a multi-factor framework (age, gender, education) of addressees is needed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it