Interlocutors’ judgment of Lx conventional expressions: An exploratory study
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 The present study is a perception study that investigates how French L1 speakers evaluate the speech produced by advanced French Lx users that deviates from the pragmatic norms of the local community. More specifically, this exploratory study investigates how conventional expressions that displayed pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic deviances affected the raters’ ( N = 62) evaluation of perceived communicative effectiveness and perceived likeability of the speakers in imagined intercultural encounters. Results from the study revealed that deviances were generally judged more severely on both evaluative dimensions than the target conventional expressions. Interestingly, however, findings also showed that deviances that partly included the pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic resources preferred by target community members were evaluated positively. Methodological recommendations to pursue this new line of inquiry in the field of intercultural pragmatics are also discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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