MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3140172317 · doi:10.31124/advance.13325654.v1

The Linguistic and Situational features of WhatsApp Messages

2020· preprint· en· W3140172317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abdulkhaliq Alazzawie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualStyle (visual arts)Situational ethicsLinguisticsContext (archaeology)PsychologyPopulationLinguistic contextComputer scienceLinguistic analysisSocial psychologySociologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WhatsApp messages can be such a rich source for creative and spontaneous language geared towards more individual expression. This study aims to explore the linguistic features of text messaging communicative intent, content and context. 100 different texts from a high school student population in Canada were collected and analyzed using Biber and Conrad’s (2009) qualitative approach to register, genre, and style analysis. The result is that many people use a lot of clipped sentences in a free flow of casual speech. It is concluded that while it is true that a lot of common abbreviations are used and have become standard, there is a lot of individualistic variance in terms of style and language usage.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Communication and LanguageFrench-language works237,207