MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321498977 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v13n2p398

The Perception of Status: The Refusal Strategies as Articulated by Tunisian EFL Teachers and British Speakers of English

2023· article· en· W4321498977 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nasser Alasmari

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionSocial statusNothingPsychologySocial psychologyContrast (vision)SociologySocial scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current research aims to find out if the perception of status is culture related. To this end, it compares the refusal strategies articulated by two groups of people namely, Tunisian EFL teachers who are currently working at the University of Jeddah and a group of British speakers when communicating with others with higher, equal, or lower status than theirs. Results indicated that the Tunisian group is much more sensitive to status than their British counterparts. The former group uses indirect refusal strategies with interlocutors of equal or higher positions but is more direct in expressing objection when talking to people with lower positions. By contrast, the British are found to be less sensitive to status as their answers were consistent irrespective of their interlocutors’ status. As a matter of fact, social status for the British group has nothing to do with the educational level or occupation while the opposite is true for the Tunisian group. The findings of the present paper are congruent with other studies which compared the Western and the Arab perceptions of status and found that the latter’s sensitivity to status originates from socio- cultural norms which underpins hierarchical social relationships.

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 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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207