MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037866456

An Ethnography of the English Language Industry in The Republic of Korea

2008· article· en· W7037866456 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Mediterranean Archaeology and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographyAmbivalenceForeign languageEnglish languageEnglish as a foreign languageFirst languageEnglish studiesLanguage assessmentEnglish as a second language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis is the outcome of four months of multi-sited ethnographic research conducted in Canada and South Korea. It is my thesis that two beliefs, one held by Koreans and the other by foreign English instructors, maintain the English language industry in South Korea. South Koreans, I will show, believe that education, and specifically English, grants an individual and his or her family status. This belief, I argue, ensures a steady demand for English language instructors in the country. It is not only the desire to fill this demand, however, that motivates native English speakers to travel to South Korea. In fact, many native English speakers who migrate to South Korea believe that teaching English will provide a cultural immersion experience that will take them deep into Korean culture. However, this expectation is often not met. What foreign English teachers discover is that relationships between foreign English educators and Koreans have a complex history in this context. As a result of the ambivalence that often characterizes Korean and foreign English teachers’ relationships, native English speakers often end up in a community of fellow ‘foreigners.’

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicAncient Mediterranean Archaeology and HistoryFrench-language works237,207