Do You Read Me? Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Chat Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a study of synchronous, text-based chat communications between customers and customer service representatives (CSRs), and examine the process of coordinating perspectives through perspective making and perspective taking to build shared understanding of context. Using a cultural hermeneutic lens and its four contextual relations, we studied more than 4400 chat messages generated during a two-year period. Successful coordination of perspectives occurred in eighty percent of the exchanges, in spite of conversational incoherence introduced by the chat technology. When coordination of perspectives between customers and CSRs failed, it was due to one or a combination of three factors: the customer's inability to successfully communicate intention, lack of customer/CSR shared understanding of reference about what was being discussed, and/or misinterpretation of each other's identities. This suggests that technology solutions to reduce conversational incoherence may not be of as much value as improving how people articulate intention and create shared reference. Finally, we demonstrate that contextual relations in cultural hermeneutics offer an analytic device and vocabulary to discern exactly what is missing when technology-mediated communication breaks down.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".