MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468470794 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v6n4p166

A Positivist Study of Conversational Pragmatic Strategies

2016· article· en· W2468470794 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Senlin Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximPositivismLinguisticsFace (sociological concept)SarcasmPsychologySociologyComputer scienceEpistemologyPhilosophyIrony

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Language use is always strategic. Speakers do not only choose linguistic forms, they also choose strategies. This paper intends to explore the ways the language users take to attain their communicate goals, i.e., pragmatic strategies. Specifically, this article aims at a comprehensive positivist of the conversational pragmatic strategies in part of the novel Man, Woman and Child by Erich Segal; the direct-indirect pragmatic strategies in the eighty-nine Coca-Cola consumer advertisements from the year 1886 up to the year 1980; the “conversational maxim” pragmatic strategies in some 793 business letters, the “conversational maxim” pragmatic strategies in seven e-mails; and the “face-management” pragmatic strategies in some 793 business letters. The goal of study is to verify the universality and feasibility of the implementation of pragmatic strategies, both in literary and business writings. Only in this way can the language users achieve their communicative goal effectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.035
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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