One perspective on <i>Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The title of this book is Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, a title which appears to offer a well-defined promissory note about the nature of its contents. And so it does. There is an introduction which sets out some central characteristics of conversation-analytic (CA) work, and briefly reviews the history of comparative analysis in anthropology – together with some of the problems confronted in the course of that history. A number of the substantive chapters that follow report work that is comparative in its very nature; most of the authors of chapters in which this is not the case go out of their way to set their respective topics in comparative context – either by including data from other language/culture settings or by reviewing (some of) the literature which sets their work in a comparative framework. For a readership that is (I suspect) largely drawn from the so-called "social" or "human" sciences – anthropology, linguistics and applied linguistics, communication, psycholinguistics and cognitive science, social psychology, and sociology, this is what one would expect such a volume to provide … from its sub-title.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it