Talk about receiving, giving, and taking in radio interviews: doing modesty and making a virtue out of necessity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acts of giving, receiving, and taking constitute much of our social lives, and talk about these acts is ubiquitous. However, such talk has not been studied in its own right. From radio interviews with persons who have accomplished or experienced something deemed remarkable, I identified two social actions that were accomplished by talk about receiving, giving, and taking: 'doing modesty' and 'making a virtue out of necessity'. Doing modesty was present in interviews with celebrities and was deftly managed through the joint use of contrasts by the participants. Making a virtue out of necessity was present in interviews in which the interviewee's experience of adversity was a prominent focus of talk, and was accomplished through the use of irony. I argue that both actions can serve the dual purposes of putting the interviewee in a good light and holding the attention of the listening audience. This research adds to existing work on social ties by providing another route for understanding how we make use of the exchange of social resources.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".