MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132946518

Written Narratives by Adult Chinese Plurilingual Students: Participants' Perceptions of Code-Switching and the (Re)Shaping of Identity

2017· dissertation· W7132946518 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wales Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2017
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)NarrativeReflexivityPerceptionQualitative researchTask (project management)Adult educationAccommodationLived experience
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the experiences and intentions for code-switching with Chinese adult students in Ontario who attended an ESL or English course in a continuing education program. Three participants were given the task of writing a short story with the option to incorporate an experimental pedagogical strategy of code-switching. Using a qualitative method, data was collected from their written narratives, followed by semi-structured interviews to discuss their experiences with code-switching. The data provides a deeper understanding of code-switchingâ s role in language learning and identity (re)shaping of adults during the process of acquiring English skills. The findings suggest that the participantsâ rationalizations for code-switching in the development of writing are influenced by the teacher as an authority figure, an active engagement in learning, and the desire for conciseness and efficiency. Furthermore, code-switching in written narratives supports identity (re)shaping through the ownership of words, reflexivity in memories, and accommodation for the reader.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.469 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicMultilingual Education and Policy→French-language works237,207→