MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018779329 · doi:10.4102/lit.v24i1.284

’n Ondersoek na die identifisering van deiktiese ruimte in die prosa

2003· article· en· W2018779329 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

VenueLiterator · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeixisUtterancePragmaticsLinguisticsContext (archaeology)Interpretation (philosophy)Computer scienceCommunicationPsychologyPhilosophyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role and function of deictic context in a prose text This article examines the nature and function of deictics in a prose text. By referring to different theories of pragmatics and literature, the nature of communication in literary texts and the role that deixis plays in these texts become evident. In a prose text a process of communication exists in which the utterance produced by the speaker (author) is interpreted by a hearer (reader). The reader reconstructs a context for this communication by the interpretation of the speaker’s references to person, place and time – the deictic elements. The reader determines the deictic context in a text by defining and interpreting the communication of the abstract author, the different speaker’s references to persons, space and time and by interpreting the implications in the linguistic utterance. In this way a deictic context is formed in the mind of the reader which forms the basis for his understanding of the message in the text.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.266 · 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