MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153214358 · doi:10.7202/000517ar

Les enjeux de l’analyse conversationnelle ou les enjeux de la conversation

2003· article· fr· W2153214358 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de linguistique · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesConversationPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bien que la très grande partie des usages linguistiques émergent en conversation, la conversation en tant que telle ne fait partie des objets de la linguistique que depuis peu. L’objectif de cet article est d’attirer l’attention sur la puissance de la conversation comme activité structurée et structurante, et sur la place que peut prendre l’analyse de la conversation dans l’interprétation des relations sociales. Autrement dit, il s’agit de montrer que la conversation est une activité sociale dont le déroulement – toujours en direct – comporte des risques et des enjeux que l’analyse conversationnelle peut interpréter. Pour ce faire, j’analyserai certains énoncés qui conduisent au mensonge et montrerai comment ce phénomène est révélateur de problèmes conversationnels qui émergent lorsque les relations sont inégales (par exemple, entre un éducateur et un apprenant, entre un professionnel et un client, etc.).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.267 · 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