Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drew and Heritage (1992: 49) note that an important dimension of asymmetry in inst itutional discourse ‘arises from the predominantly quest ion-answer pattern of interact ion. ’ Th is organization, it is suggest ed, provides little opportunity for the answerer (typically a lay person) to initiate talk and thus allows the inst itutional representative ‘to gain a measure of control over the introduct ion of topics and hence of the “agenda ” for the occasion. ’ In this paper, we critically examine this issue based on data drawn from a 2001 Ontario (Canada) provincial inquiry into the deaths of seven people as a result of water contamination in a small Ontario town. In particular, we argue that the power of cross-examining lawyers does not reside solely in their ability to ask controlling and rest rict ive quest ions of witnesses. Rather, we suggest that such interact ional control is crucially dependent on lawyers ’ ability to compel witnesses to produce st raightforward, or what we will call, following Raymond (2003), type-conforming, answers to these controlling and rest rict ive quest ions.
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 | 0.038 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".