Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cooperative Principle (CP), Grice’s influential contribution to pragmatics, advances strongly in linguistics, philosophy, psychology and sociology. However, doubts and criticisms on it have been unceasing. They are mainly concerned with the following four aspects: The term “cooperation” itself is ambiguous; the question of whether the CP belongs to a range of principles or rules has not been decided; The four maxims cannot be applied extensively; The descriptions of the violations are not too persuasive. These critical views are the results of some scholars’ misunderstandings. First, they ignore to give self-definition of “cooperation” in the CP; Second, they mix the concepts and relationship between the cooperative principle and conversational maxims; Thirdly, they indiscreetly impose the cooperative essence of the CP on the maxims so that maxims are imprisoned.
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 | 0.037 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".