MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1533376949

Cognitive & Communicative Principle and the Interpretation of Bridging Anaphora

2013· article· en· W1533376949 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoli Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistic research and analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance theoryBridging (networking)CognitionRelevance (law)PhenomenonPsychologyAnaphora (linguistics)LinguisticsNounInterpretation (philosophy)Cognitive psychologyComputer scienceEpistemologyArtificial intelligencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bridging anaphora, a usual phenomenon in daily communication, is characterized by the anaphoric expressions which are definite noun phrases. This process can be interpreted as the search for relevance by communicators. Cognitive Principle claims that humans intuitively concentrate their minds on relevance and Communicative Principle provides bases for identifying the referents. Bridging anaphora can be expounded cognitively under the framework of Relevance Theory.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.024
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicLinguistic research and analysisFrench-language works237,207