MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077448887 · doi:10.1080/0163853x.2012.654760

Turn-Continuation by Self and by Other

2012· article· en· W2077448887 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

VenueDiscourse Processes · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuationVariety (cybernetics)Computer sciencePoint (geometry)Turn-takingLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsProgramming languagePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the possible completion of a turn constructional unit (TCU) that has not selected a next speaker, a speaker has two available options: either begin a new TCU or continue the one that has just come to a point of possible completion. This article describes some of the complex turns that result from exercising the second option. These can be seen to consist of at least two components: a host and a continuation. This article focuses, in particular, on cases in which these are produced by different speakers. Although a basic distinction between reverse- and same-directionality continuations can account for many instances, other cases are more complicated. This article suggests that such cases encourage us to consider the variety of footings a speaker can adopt vis-à-vis the prior talk by continuing another participant's turn.

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 score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.262 · 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