MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1533245023

The Analysis of Pragmatic Ambivalence in A Dream of Red Mansions

2015· article· en· W1533245023 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chunling Geng

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbivalenceUtteranceIndeterminacy (philosophy)Relevance (law)LinguisticsPsychologyStatement (logic)Meaning (existential)Relevance theoryDreamEpistemologyPhenomenonFrame (networking)Social psychologyPhilosophyComputer scienceCognitionPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pragmatic ambivalence refers to the indeterminacy of utterance meaning in the dynamic process of language use. According to Thomas (1991, 1995) and Yu Dongming (1997), pragmatic ambivalence is the language phenomenon in which the speaker conveys two or more illocutionary acts or illocutionary forces to the hearer by using indeterminate, ambivalent or indirect utterances in a certain speech act. It is a communicative strategy consciously employed by the speaker to achieve specific communicative effects. Taking conversations in the novel A Dream of Red Mansions as the research data, relevance theory as the theoretical foundation, the thesis defines the pragmatic ambivalence, analyzes the features and functions of pragmatic ambivalence, and discusses the features and functions of pragmatic ambivalence in the novel.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.030
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207