MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991270530 · doi:10.1017/s0305000912000773

Intonation influences how children and adults interpret sarcasm

2013· article· en· W1991270530 on OpenAlexaff
Melanie Glenwright, JAYANTHI M. PARACKEL, Kristene Cheung, Elizabeth S. Nilsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Language · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcasmPsychologyIntonation (linguistics)Interpretation (philosophy)Literal (mathematical logic)Literal and figurative languageDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsIrony

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adults distinguish sarcasm from literal language according to intonation involving a reduction in fundamental frequency (F0). We examined whether children's and adults' interpretation of a sarcastic speaker's belief, attitude, and humor was affected by degree of F0 reduction by presenting five- to six-year-olds and adults with sarcastic and literal criticisms with a small, medium, or large mean F0 reduction. Children and adults were more accurate in attributing the speaker's belief and intent for sarcastic criticisms for large F0 reductions compared to small reductions. These results show that F0 reduction is a helpful cue to sarcasm interpretation for both children and adults.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child LanguageSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207