MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404662696 · doi:10.1111/ijal.12645

Inventing a Language Online: The Practice of Edutainment in English Teaching Instagram Posts

2024· article· en· W4404662696 on OpenAlexaff
Naseh Nasrollahi Shahri, Mojtaba Soleimani Karizmeh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Linguistics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyPsychologyLinguisticsPedagogyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT As the use of English in digital spaces continues to grow, there is an increasing amount of research focused on how it is adapted to local contexts. Proceeding from the argument that we need to go beyond studying English in isolation to investigate how it gets localized in digital settings, the purpose of the study is to investigate Instagram English teaching posts intended for an Iranian audience. To this end, we collect and analyze a dataset of Instagram posts aimed at teaching English. The research questions center on the resources which come together in these posts. Theoretically, the analysis draws on language assemblages. The findings show that English is entangled with a range of other resources and these Instagram posts emerge as engaging in edutainment, a material activity involving three interlined semiotic processes. While these processes do involve drawing from the users' L1s, they are more complex, involving a more varied set of resources than language. The social practice of edutainment comes to the fore as central, and forms are enlisted to serve this practice.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Applied LinguisticsSame topicDigital Communication and LanguageFrench-language works237,207