MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247435533 · doi:10.22215/etd/2017-11939

Slurs: Their Use and Cognitive Impact

2017· dissertation· en· W4247435533 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Rafferty

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGricePragmaticsUtteranceLinguisticsSemantics (computer science)Meaning (existential)ImplicatureGermanPhilosophyPsychologyEpistemologyComputer scienceCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since Kaplan's seminal (unpublished) 2005 manuscript, "The meaning of 'Ouch' and 'Oops'", derogatory language came to the philosophy of language forum. One of the main questions concerns how the distinction between a slur like "Boche" and its neutral counterpart "German" enters the semantics/pragmatics debate. In this thesis, I will attempt to capture the offensiveness conveyed by the utterance of a slur using Grice's notion of pragmatic implicatures. Slurs will be explained in exploiting Grice's notion of generalized conversational implicatures within the pluri-propositionalist framework inspired by Perry. Along this line, we can maintain a clear-cut distinction between semantics and pragmatics phenomena.

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 categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207