Interpersonal Meaning in Doctors’ Interrogatives From the Respective of Systemic Functional Grammar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives : To carry out a systemic functional research on the interpersonal meaning realized in Chinese doctor-patient conversations from the perspective of doctors’ choice of interrogative. Methods: Data were randomly collected from conversations between doctors and outpatients in one hospital in China, while being analyzed in terms of the interpersonal meaning from the SFL perspective. Statistical analysis was conducted by using SPSS 17.0. Results: (1) Interrogatives are also favored in doctor-patient conversations in China as compared with findings from other studies (Brody, 1992; Smith, et al., 1998; Meeuwesen, et al, 2007), but Chinese doctors dominate in the whole process of diagnosis and treatment, exerting great influence on the patient. (2) Yes-no interrogatives are favored more by doctors practicing Traditional Chinese Medicine than by those in other clinic departments. (3) Both yes-no interrogatives and alterative interrogatives can be quickly responded to, but doctors in China usually ignore this, unaware of the importance of building harmonious interpersonal relationships. Practice implications: This research may enhance the efficiency of treatment and decrease medical disputes caused by bad communications.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".