La communication comme étude de l’action sociale : au sujet de la recherche sur le langage et l’interaction sociale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cette entrevue, Anita Pomerantz et Robert E. Sanders, professeurs émérites au département de communication de la University at Albany-SUNY, discutent de leurs perspectives quant à la recherche sur le langage et l’interaction sociales. Ils partagent leur compréhension du rapport entre la recherche LSI et la discipline de la communication, et expliquent ce que l’on peut gagner à étudier l’action sociale plutôt que de se concentrer exclusivement sur les messages. Le lien entre l’interaction et son contexte, et la façon dont ce dernier peut servir de base pour analyser la première, sont également abordés. Pomerantz et Sanders puisent leurs idées dans leur engagement actif depuis les années 1970, comme porte-paroles de la communauté LSI et, plus particulièrement, comme têtes de proue de l’analyse de conversation (CA).
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 | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".