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 OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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