Intercultural communication in second-language (L2) learning via social media within the Inuit context: a scoping literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping literature review examines the extent of research in second-language learning through intercultural communication on social media, specifically in Inuit (Indigenous people of the Arctic) communities. The investigation maps out gaps in the literature and explains the need for research in the Inuit context. Forty-seven studies and related resources are examined through a conceptual lens focused on the intersections between intercultural communication, social media, and Indigenous peoples, revealing concentrations on authentic interaction, Indigenous identity, language revitalization, and maintenance. Particular to the Inuit context, the analysis identifies the following gaps: (a) intercultural communication in second-language learning and Inuit; (b) second language learning through social media and Inuit; and (c) intercultural communication in second-language learning via social media and Inuit. None of the studies reviewed describe pedagogical applications for Inuit. This scoping literature review suggests future research and curriculum development that could be implemented in the Inuit context, particularly in Nunavik.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".