MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313533189 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v13n1p248

The Impact of Studying English in China on Thai University Students’ Intercultural Competence

2022· article· en· W4313533189 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kannikar Kantamas

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaIntercultural communicationNonprobability samplingPsychologyCompetence (human resources)Adaptation (eye)Intercultural competenceSocial psychologyPedagogySociologyPolitical scienceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The major purposes of this study aimed (1) to investigate the communication differences and cross-cultural adaptation of Thai university students studying English in China PR., (2) to investigate the problems of the Thai university students’ cross-cultural adaptation, as well as (3) to investigate factors influencing their intercultural competence. A structured questionnaire was conducted across 30 Thai students as the target group studying English at Yu’Xi Normal University China PR, selected by the purposive sampling technique. The results of the study revealed that 1) demographically, there was not much difference in adaptation between male and female target groups in terms of gender, age, and residency length; 2) negative attitudes in Thai university students to Asians caused a separation between Thai and Chinese groups due to the behavioural characteristics of Thai people who were concerned about speaking straightforwardly. In terms of communication ability, language affects communication directly between individuals and groups in everyday life and the classroom. Also, they all are looking to be positive, open-minded, and accepting; moreover, a new culture can be accepted by not setting yourself up, and language contributes to adapting across cultures to create mutual understanding, as well as to build relations with local people. Also, choosing a friend from various groups in different activities is necessary to exchange opinions with each other in the target society.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207