MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098863409

10.1177/0261927X03252758 ARTICLE JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / June 2003 Clément et al. / A MODEL OF L2 USE WILLINGNESS TO COMMUNICATE IN A SECOND LANGUAGE The Effects of Context, Norms, and Vitality

2016· article· en· W7098863409 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillingness to communicateContext (archaeology)Identity (music)Second languageSocial identity theoryFrenchVitalitySocial environment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Past research has focused primarily on second langauge (L2) acquisition as a tool for pro-moting intercultural communication. The social context model, for example, stresses the importance of contact, L2 confidence, and identity in acquiring a L2. The willingness to communicate (WTC) model,however, emerged from a concern with the functions of L2 use. This study combines these two models to consider both contextual and individual differ-ence variables in L2 use. Participants were 130 Anglophone (majority) and 248 Francophone (minority) students attending a Canadian bilingual university. Path analy-ses supported a model in which context, individual, and social factors were all important determinants of L2 use, although patterns of relations differed depending on the ethnolinguistic vitality of the group. The importance of subjective norms was further con-firmed as moderators of the relationship between L2 confidence and identity among Francophones. Results are discussed within the context of current models of intergroup communication.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207