<scp>Anna Trosborg & Poul Erik Flyvholm Jørgensen (eds.)</scp>, <i>Business discourse: Texts and contexts</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anna Trosborg & Poul Erik Flyvholm Jørgensen (eds.) , Business discourse: Texts and contexts . Bern: Peter Lang, 2005. Pp. 250, Pb. $55.95. This book consists of nine chapters analyzing various genres of business discourse, and an introduction written by the editors. All of the chapters in the book would be strengthened by more rigorous data analysis procedures, whether quantitative or qualitative. Nevertheless, there is much of value in the book, parts of which will be of use to a wide range of potential audiences. Okamura interviewed office workers in international businesses about the use of address terms in the workplace, both in English and in their mother tongue, comparing Japanese with Swedish, British, Canadian, American, and Dutch speakers. Interviewees' accommodation to the cultural norms of the group differed according to the power of the speaker: Higher-status employees were less likely to adopt local norms over their own country's addressing conventions. While Okamura acknowledges that his sample size is small, and that transcriptions of actual interactions would be a stronger data source than the interviews he relied on, his findings are interesting and potentially useful for courses on intercultural communication, business communication, or the sociology of language.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".