MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106013954 · doi:10.1177/0261927x12446601

A Comparison of Conversational Quality in Online and Face-to-Face First Encounters

2012· article· en· W2106013954 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

VenueJournal of Language and Social Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationConversePsychologyFace-to-faceComputer-mediated communicationQuality (philosophy)Focus (optics)Face (sociological concept)Style (visual arts)Online chatSocial psychologyCommunicationComputer scienceLinguisticsThe InternetWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Students encountering each other for the first time were asked to converse for 30 minutes either face-to-face or through online chat. Conversational quality was compared to examine the possibility that specific social differences in communicative style are reduced or erased in online chat. As expected, gender differences evident in face-to-face conversation were absent online. However, conversational differences between experienced and inexperienced online chat users were, on the whole, similar across conditions. More generally, online chat appeared to produce less sequential connectivity, greater self-focus, and less other-focus than did face-to-face conversation.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.364 · 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