The flexible semantic integration of gestures and words
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
One measure of the communicative function of gestures is to test how speakers’ gestures are influenced by whether an addressee can see them or not, that is, by manipulating visibility between participants. We question traditional dependent variables (i.e., rate measures), suggesting that they may have been insufficient for capturing essential differences in the gestures speakers use in each condition. We propose that investigating the qualitative features of gestures is a more nuanced, and ultimately more informative approach. We examined how speakers distributed information between their gestures and words, testing whether this distribution was affected by the visibility of their addressee. Twenty pairs of undergraduates took part in conversations that were either face to face ( n = 10) or on the telephone ( n = 10). Each speaker described a drawing of an elaborate dress to the addressee. We used a semantic feature analysis to analyze descriptions of the dress’ skirt and assessed when words or gestures contributed information about five categories pertaining to features of the skirt’s unusual shape. Although speakers’ rates of gesturing and number of words did not vary significantly between conditions, speakers contributed more information and conveyed more categories in their gestures when the addressee would see them, while words carried the informational burden when addressees would not see the gestures ( p ’s < .001). These results suggest that gestures serve a communicative function. The semantic feature analysis is thus an example of how to explore gestures’ qualitative features within a quantitative paradigm.
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