Multimodality and translanguaging in negotiation of meaning
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
Abstract The present study examines the role that multimodality and translanguaging play in scaffolding oral interactions during language‐related episodes (LREs) involving meaning negotiation. The oral tasks carried out using synchronous video‐based computer‐mediated communication were part of a tandem virtual exchange (Spain, Canada). The participants, 18 dyads of English and Spanish college‐level learners, conducted three oral interaction tasks in pairs online. LREs were identified and transcribed and data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively, including all instances of translanguaging and uses of multiple modes of meaning‐making. Quantitative data revealed that translanguaging involved not only English and Spanish, but also other shared languages and occurred mostly during meaning negotiation. Additionally, the use of multimodal elements, including gestures, postures, gaze, multiple digital and physical devices (mobile devices, computers, props, notes) was examined. Qualitative data analyses revealed the interplay between multimodality and learners’ multilingual repertoires which reinforced and complemented meaning‐making during these episodes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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