MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self-praise and Positive Self-assessment in Chekhov’s Plays

2021· article· en· W3178890610 on OpenAlexaff
Veronika Makarova

Bibliographic record

VenueTwo centuries of the Russian classics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraisePsychologyCriticismSocial psychologyDerogationLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper applies Speech Act Theory towards an investigation of the use and role of self-praise/positive self-assessment in the texts of three Chekhov’s plays: The Seagull, Three Sisters and The Cherry Orchard. The findings conducted with manual coding of texts for the speech acts of self-praise/positive self-assessment suggest that Chekhov employed self-praise for a number of textual and character-building functions. In particular, self-praise functions as a literary device to identify less likable characters as well as to provide a chance for more likable characters to stand up for themselves against injustice and provocation. The self-praise/positive self-assessment comes in mitigated and aggravated forms. Mitigation is mostly achieved through grammatical or phrasal means, as well as semantically through self-criticism, whereby the only form of aggravation observed in the data was other-criticism/other-derogation. Specific forms of a positive self-assessment likely unique to Chekhov’s plays are ‘linguistic brags’, i.e., contextually unjustifiable switches to French and Latin as well as ‘generational’ positive self-representation in Three Sisters. The results suggest that investigations of speeh acts in dramas could be productive for literary theory, as they shed more light on the characters development as well as the genre mastery of the playwright.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTwo centuries of the Russian classicsSame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207