MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033147158 · doi:10.5539/ells.v10n2p80

On the Language Strategies in the Chinese Debating TV Show from the Perspective of Interpersonal Function Theory

2020· article· en· W3033147158 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bing Li, Jun Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Social Science Fund of China
KeywordsInterpersonal communicationPerspective (graphical)MoodAtmosphere (unit)Function (biology)Competition (biology)PsychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taking the interpersonal function theory as the theoretical framework, this study selects the popular online talk show “Qi Pa speaking” in China as the data to analyze language strategies used by debaters to win votes and supports. The TV program, “Qi Pa Speaking”, is a new program format, which is popular with people at all ages. It is different from the traditional form of debating competition with serious atmosphere, on the contrary, the atmosphere of the show is relaxed and lively. The results show that the declarative and exclamatory moods are two frequently used strategies by the debaters. The declarative mood usually implies the earnest instruction, while exclamatory mood helps to make the arguments more convincing. The use of different moods also reflects the different personalities of the debaters.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicDigital Communication and LanguageFrench-language works237,207