MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007397359 · doi:10.1177/0261927x05284485

Evaluations of Overhelping and Underhelping Communication

2006· article· en· W2007397359 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 Language and Social Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWheelchairPsychologyAssertivenessStyle (visual arts)Intonation (linguistics)Focus (optics)Applied psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyLinguisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older adults and persons with disability experience communication predicaments involving inappropriate help. In a retail setting, the authors examined the meanings of overhelping and underhelping and how these may be affected by the recipient's age and (dis)ability status. Young adults ( n= 221) were presented with a picture of either a young or an older target seated in an armchair or a wheelchair. Participants then read three different conversations across which their target was addressed in professional, overhelping, or underhelping speech styles. Salesperson overhelping style was associated with the most exaggerated intonation. Compared to the professional, overhelping led to downgrading of customer satisfaction and salesperson effectiveness. “Blametherecipient” effects occurred in evaluations of both underhelped and overhelped customers. The customer in a wheelchair was rated more competent than the seated target regardless of age or salesperson style. Future research will focus on assertiveness options for managing needed or unwanted help.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.325 · 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