Anaphora Resolution in Stream-of-Consciousness Discourse: A Metonymic Account
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study is devoted to elaborating a metonymic model and principles of anaphora resolution in stream-of-consciousness (SOC) discourse based on metonymic inferential processing to anaphora resolution constrained by the principle of optimal relevance, and then the explanatory power of the model and principles is testified by anaphora occurring in stream-of-consciousness discourse. The research reveals that (1) Idealized Cognitive Model (ICM) functions as the cognitive basis of anaphora resolution; (2) cognitive and pragmatic constraints on anaphora resolution interact, and the division of labor between them can be measured against both conceptual distance between antecedent and anaphor and degrees of optimal relevance; (3) the derived framework may be applicable to other discourse types. In short, anaphora resolution in stream-of-consciousness discourse is actually a cognio-pragmatic inferencing process, in which the hearer/reader achieves optimal relevance based on the conceptual distance between antecedent and anaphor in idealized cognitive models.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".