Semantic shift to pragmatic meaning in shared decision making: situation theory perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The way humans establish communication depends on the generation and conveyance of meaning.Linguistically, meaning in information is dependent on the meaning that is ascribed to signifiers in the context of the communication.These signifiers can include items such as words, phrases, signs, and symbols.Conveyance of meaning may, however, imprecise and prone to error.The meaning of information in communication may arise from a change in the context in which a signifier is placed (intrinsic), or a change in the paradigm with which the signifier and context are perceived (extrinsic).In simple situations, where paradigms are reconcilable, semantic shift is solely intrinsic.In complex situations, where differing paradigms will generally lead to irreconcilable perspectives (paradoxes and dualities); the semantic shift will be both intrinsic and extrinsic.Decisions are based on an individual's (or individuals' shared) understanding and understanding is in turn contingent on perspective.Decision making will, therefore, be affected by discrepancies in meaning.It is critical to understand the nature of the discrepancies where shared awareness is necessary to enable group decisions.The theoretical construct presented recognizes that (1) a semantic shift may be required where multiple perspectives based on different paradigms come into play and (2) a semantic shift may introduce error, inefficiency, noise or redundancy.Therefore, individual limits can be recognized via shared awareness, which can be studied with situation theory.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".