MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988495034 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v9n6p392

Pragma-Semantic Relations in the Structure of a Business Microblog

2019· article· en· W2988495034 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexandra Radyuk, Maria V. Ivanova, Darima A. Badmatsyrenova, Vasily S. Makukha

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRUDN University
KeywordsMicrobloggingComputer scienceSocial mediaContext (archaeology)InteractivityBusiness communicationRelevance (law)Semantics (computer science)World Wide WebPsychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article considers the business microblog as a new business communication register and studies its structural and semantic properties. The relevance of the work is determined by the fact that at present the microblog register in the context of business communication and its semantic structure are not fully studied. The authors aim to find out what pragmatic, structural and semantic features are peculiar to business messages in social network Twitter. Using the methods of discourse analysis, semantic and linguosynergetic analysis, we identified such structural properties of business microblogs as hypertextuality, interactivity, spontaneity, business context, dialogism, situationality and expressiveness. Semantic properties include most frequent pragma-semantic relations between propositions in microblogs (explanation, expansion, causation, pragmatic commentary). The language material shows that the genre of business microblogging is the result of mixing and contamination of oral and written registers of business discourse, as well as the emergence of new technical means of communication. A linguosynergetic analysis of propositions showed that the semantic structure is determined by the communicative intention of the addressee and, due to the small volume of messages, is based on two or three propositions connected by certain logical relationships. Further research on this topic can be carried out in the field of studying other genres and the influence of addressee factor in online communication.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.015
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicDigital Communication and LanguageFrench-language works237,207