MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388960506 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v13n9p31

Multimedia Educational Environment as a Tool for Developing Communicative Competences in the Field of Trilingual Higher Education

2023· article· en· W4388960506 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

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicForeign Language Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunicative competenceComputer scienceCurriculumCompetence (human resources)Knowledge managementSociologyPedagogyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When examining the conditions of modernity and the specifics of the formation and regulation of social relations, including educational ones, one should establish that they are completely focused on global informatisation and development. The relevance of studying the issue of communicative competence formation in a multimedia educational environment is quite high today, as it meets the challenges of modern society. The purpose of this study is to analyse the process of development and consolidation of communicative competence in the context of trilingual higher education, by using the basics and advantages of multimedia educational environment. The research adopted a functional and systematic methodological approach to examine the role of multimedia educational environments in trilingual higher education communicative competence, progressing through three detailed stages and drawing from a comprehensive literature review sourced from databases like Google Scholar and Scopus. Key methodologies included analysis, synthesis, and comparison, with findings divided into theoretical and practical insights, culminating in conclusions and future research directions. Accordingly, the main general theoretical issues and concepts are revealed in the theoretical part and their specific features are established. The practical part concretises the above-mentioned aspects, according to the purpose of the study. The practical value of this study lies in the fact that it can be used both in the context of methodological material, for curriculum development, and as a primary source for scientific work.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.365 · 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