Bibliographic record
Abstract
A review of the literature on English second language (L2) writing skills reveals a need for more research on the workplace writing experiences of L2 professionals employed in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts. Through a semi-structured interview and a think-aloud activity, this study gathered qualitative data with the aim of gaining insight into the workplace writing practices, challenges, and strategies of five EAL professionals with developing workplace writing skills, employed in Toronto. The data were initially analyzed using a thematic analysis technique, and upon further exploration, three factors were identified as influential in the development of the participants’ workplace writing skills: motivation, awareness of the role of self, and awareness of the role of others.
 Une revue de la littérature sur les compétences d’écriture en anglais langue seconde (ALS) révèle la nécessité de mener davantage de recherches à propos des expériences d’écriture dans le milieu de travail des professionnels ayant appris l’ALS et qui travaillent dans des contextes d’anglais en tant que langue additionnelle (ALA). En utilisant des entretiens semi-dirigés et des activités de réflexion à haute voix, cette étude qualitative avait pour objectif de mieux comprendre les pratiques, défis et stratégies d’écriture en milieu de travail de 5 professionnels ALA, ayant des compétences d’écriture en développement et travaillant à Toronto. Les données ont été initialement analysées suivant une technique d’analyse thématique. Des analyses plus approfondies ont mené à l’identification de trois facteurs d’influence dans le développement des compétences d’écriture en milieu de travail chez les participants : la motivation, la conscience du rôle de soi-même et la conscience du rôle des autres.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 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) | 0.066 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".