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

Intonation influences how children and adults interpret sarcasm

2013· article· en· W1991270530 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

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.931
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 head0.004
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