MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217629250 · doi:10.23977/etmhs.2017.1011

Cultivating Intercultural Communication Competence in Spoken English Teaching

2017· article· en· W3217629250 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Educational Technology and Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntercultural communicationCompetence (human resources)Computer sciencePsychologyLinguisticsPedagogySocial psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasingly frequent intercultural encounters highlight the significance of intercultural communication competence to successful and smooth communication. Intercultural communication competence is composed of the four parts of verbal communication competence, nonverbal communication competence, competence of cultural adaptation/ adjustment, and competence of transformation of linguistic and communication rules. Based on an analysis of the deficiencies of students' intercultural communication competence from the four aspects of linguistic deficiency, pragmatic deficiency, non-linguistic deficiency and cultural differences deficiency, strategies to cultivate intercultural communication competence are proposed, including consolidating students' spoken English foundation, enhancing teachers' intercultural communication competence, cultivating intercultural awareness, strengthening self-knowledge, and improving students' ability to cope with conflicts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.354 · 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