MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187920119 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v5n6p115

A Survey of Conceptualizations of Politeness

2015· article· en· W2187920119 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lei Qiu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitenessUniversality (dynamical systems)Politeness theoryFace negotiation theoryPsychologyLinguisticsSocial psychologySociologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Along with the general trends of research from traditional Gricean approach to postmodern approach, politeness has been conceptualized as facework, social indexing concept, relational work and interactional work. Based on examination of debates over East group-oriented and Western individual-oriented politeness, first-order and second-order politeness, as well as the universality and relativity of conceptualizations, this paper has roughly demonstrated that the tension between universality and relativity of politeness can help to explain the reason for lack of uniform definition and concept in this field. It is essential for researchers to seek a universal second-order culture-general theoretical construct on one hand, and to look at first-order culture-specific constructs on the other hand.</p>

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.051
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207