MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016700105 · doi:10.1075/slsi.33.03tal

Mobilizing for the next relevant action

2020· book-chapter· en· W3016700105 on OpenAlexaff
Carmen Taleghani‐Nikazm, Veronika Drake, Andrea Golato, Emma Betz

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in language and social interaction · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Computer sciencePolitical sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter discusses three different actions speakers can employ to move between two concurrently ongoing activities, playing cards and talking. Specifically, we describe three turn formats that mobilize another participant to perform the next move in a card game: (1) turns including the discourse marker so , (2) imperatives, and (3) second-person declaratives. So -turns and imperative forms are used to resume a game put on hold, however, imperatives are only used if speakers have already shown an orientation to game resumption. In contrast, second-person declaratives are used in situations when one player is not oriented to the game but others are. In the discussion, we show that turn formats are sensitive to the multimodal context and participation framework of the interaction.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.309
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.112 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in language and social interactionSame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207