MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095379322 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v3n5p14

Irony and the Standard Pragmatic Model

2013· article· en· W2095379322 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
István Pálinkás

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIronyNegationPredicate (mathematical logic)AmbiguityLinguisticsMeaning (existential)CriticismKey (lock)EpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article provides a criticism of the traditional view of irony. First, an outline of the model will be presented, placing particular emphasis on one of its key assumptions that when irony is understood, the ironist means the opposite of what he says. The paper evaluates the above supposition by providing examples of irony in which the opposite of the speaker's meaning could be interpreted in terms of two different types of negation: predicate and propositional. In conclusion, I propose that it might be impossible to define the exact opposite of what a speaker says. Thus, the traditional view of irony is incomplete and should be treated with precaution.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.023
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207