MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980170105 · doi:10.1017/s0047404508080998

Repair in membership categorization in French

2008· article· en· W1980170105 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage in Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationConversationVariety (cybernetics)NegotiationLinguisticsMeaning (existential)SociologyConversation analysisIdentity (music)Macro levelSpeech communityFrenchPsychologyComputer scienceCommunicationSocial scienceArtificial intelligenceAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Using conversation analysis as methodology, this article provides a link between the local organization of talk and larger societal issues by investigating specific conversational sequences in which French speakers from different speech communities interact. It is argued that in addition to dealing with problems of speaking, hearing, and understanding, repair can simultaneously be used to negotiate linguistic membership. Repair can be used to establish, confirm, or insist on speakers' belonging to one particular speech community over another. Moreover, participants can use repair to express affiliation and disaffiliation with each other. The implications of this research are discussed, linking the organization of conversation with issues of language and identity, specifically with the social meaning of dialect variety in the Francophone world. Thus, this article demonstrates how phenomena commonly discussed on the macro level are realized and negotiated on the micro level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.231 · 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