Stating with certainty or stating with doubt
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Texts exhibit subtle yet identifiable modality about writers' estimation of how true each statement is (e.g., definitely true or somewhat true). This study is an analysis of such explicit certainty and doubt markers in epistemically modalized statements for a written news discourse. The study systematically accounts for five levels of writer's certainty (ABSOLUTE, HIGH, MODERATE, LOW CERTAINTY and UNCERTAINTY) in three news pragmatic contexts: perspective, focus, and time. The study concludes that independent coders' perceptions of the boundaries between shades of certainty in epistemically modalized statements are highly subjective and present difficulties for manual annotation and consequent automation for opinion extraction and sentiment analysis. While stricter annotation instructions and longer coder training can improve inter-coder agreement results, it is not entirely clear that a five-level distinction of certainty is preferable to a simplistic distinction between statements with certainty and statements with doubt.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it