Non-Verbal Communication in the Modern World
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is devoted to the subject of non-verbal communication in English-speaking countries. In the first part of this article we analyze the theoretical issues as Communication Theories in Linguistics and Psycholinguistics, as well as Perception Theory and Non-verbal and Verbal communication in general. Comparative analysis of specify for non-verbal communication with the example of English-speaking countries such as the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand is shown in the second part . The main conclusion is that in spite of the fact that these countries are English speaking they have both similar and different non-verbal communication signs and all these differences depend on various cultural contexts, mentality as well as the perception of non-verbal signs. The main idea of this article can be valuable for the world of Psycholinguistics and modern communication because it shows all the important cues of non-verbal communication which every time helps in communication act. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n4p553
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it