Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linguistic politeness has been shown, over the last few decades, to be a successful device for studying literaturelinguistically. In addition to establishing and asserting identity and achieving goals, linguistic politeness is a meansof studying social interaction to establish social, harmonious and friendly relationships among interactants. Thisstudy aims at investigating Anne's social interaction in Montgomery's Anne of Green Gables, which has a verypowerful meaning in children's literature, and her relation with others as she grows up and as she develops frombeing a socially marginalized female character to a productive contributing citizen of Avonlea. Brown andLevinson's pragmatic theory of politeness (1987), in addition to some other subsequent contributions, provide theanalytical tools to guide this approach, which correspondingly analyses the range of face-threatening acts performed(represented via directives), the forms of redressive actions taken to counter those threats represented in the form oflinguistic strategies and the reasons and goals that substantiate the use of such forms in relation to social roles. Thevalue of the study can be estimated not only by those working within the branches of linguistics or literature, but alsoit can be of value to EFL/ESL learners especially those who study the novel as part of their curriculum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".