The Theoretical and Research Basis of Co-Constructing Meaning in Dialogue
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
de Shazer (1991) introduced a post-structural view of language in therapy in which the participants' sociai interaction determines the meaning of the words they are using. Broader theories of social construction are similar but lack details about the role of language. This article focuses on the observable details of co-constructing meaning in dialogue. Research in psycholinguistics has provided experimental evidence for how speakers and their addressees collaboratively co-construct their dialogues. We review several of the experiments that have demonstrated the influence and importance of the addressee in shaping what the speaker is saying. Building on this research, we present a moment-by-moment three-step grounding sequence in which the speaker presents information, the addressee displays understanding, and the speaker confirms this understanding. We propose that this micro-pattern and its variations are the observable process by which the participants in a dialogue negotiate and co-construct shared meanings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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