MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400055108 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v14n6p99

"Good Morning, My Dear Dr." Openings and Closings in University Students’ Academic Emails

2024· article· en· W4400055108 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rafat Mahmoud Al Rousan, Nabil Al-Awawdeh, Hala Hassan, Malak AlRousan

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClosing (real estate)PolitenessEtiquetteSample (material)Interpersonal communicationPsychologyTypologyArabicComputer scienceSociologySocial psychologyLinguisticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study investigates the openings and closings in the emails of Jordanian undergraduate students to their professors. It is significant as it provides invaluable insights into different aspects of student-professor interpersonal communication. This study seeks to fill a gap in the literature by examining how Jordanian university undergraduates open and close their first-contact emails to their professors. This study uses both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The sample of this study consisted of 200 authentic Arabic email messages drawn from a professor’s mail inbox. The data were analyzed based on Salazar-Campillo & Codina-Espurz’s typology of opening and closing. The findings reveal that the emails included all the opening and closing moves reported by previous research, however, with clear variation. The findings also show that openings and closings are used as politeness strategies to create a positive tone for student-professor academic interactions. Moreover, the study concludes that the emails resorted to more informal opening and closing formulas. The emails in this study do not conform to the norms and etiquette of student-professor email interaction. Furthermore, this study reports the use of emojis in almost all moves of the opening and closing sequences. Based on the findings, future studies are recommended.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicDigital Communication and LanguageFrench-language works237,207