Referring in dialogical narratives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In a recent overview of the literature on spontaneous and experimentally-produced speech, Allen, Hughes, and Skarabela (2015) identified many discourse-pragmatic factors that affect the use of referring expressions. In this chapter, we first assess the individual effects and the relative importance of four factors (i.e., position of the referring expression in the referential chain and its syntactic function, the referent’s characteristics – primacy and/or animacy – and the chronological age) in a narrative dialogue between a mother and her child. Second, we describe the joint impact of these factors on the use of nouns and third-person pronouns. A total of 30 typically-developing French-speaking children aged 4 to 7 years participated with their mother in a joint storytelling. Our results corroborate those found in the literature on the factors affecting young children’s use of referring expressions. Furthermore, they show a complex network of relations between the factors, that interestingly, was not the same for nouns and third-person pronouns.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it