MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173964282 · doi:10.1080/01434632.2021.1935975

Willingness to communicate in a multilingual context: part two, person-context dynamics

2021· article· en· W3173964282 on OpenAlexaff
Alastair Henry, Cecilia Thorsén, Peter D. MacIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
FundersVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsWillingness to communicateMultilingualismContext (archaeology)Dynamics (music)Perspective (graphical)PsychologyContext effectLanguage contactAffect (linguistics)LinguisticsSocial psychologyComputer sciencePedagogyCommunicationHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many contexts of multilingualism, language learners can initiate communication in the target language (TL), or a contact language (such as English). Patterns of use emerging from these choices vary between individuals and affect TL development. Willingness to communicate (WTC) needs to be investigated in ways that capture these variations. So far, WTC has not been studied in multilingual contexts, or using individual-level designs. This case study explores intraindividual variability in the WTC propensities of adult learners of Swedish for whom the TL and English provide viable communication options in community interaction. Carried out over a period where TL skills began to develop, the purpose was to explore the process characteristics of changes in communication-initiation propensities. A person-context dynamics perspective was employed, and analyses of time-serial data were combined with analyses of concurrently generated interview data. Results reveal how changes in WTC could be gradual and nongradual, continuous and discontinuous.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Multilingual and Multicultural DevelopmentSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207