MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312647388 · doi:10.17721/2663-6530.2021.40.11

PROSODIC FEATURES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ENGLISH MONOLOGUE AND DIALOGUE

2021· article· en· W4312647388 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePROBLEMS OF SEMANTICS PRAGMATICS AND COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscourse Analysis and Cultural Communication
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntonation (linguistics)Tone (literature)InterrogativeProsodyLinguisticsRepetition (rhetorical device)AppealPitch contourPsychologyStatement (logic)Function (biology)Cognitive psychologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article deals with a description of the peculiarities of the intonational design of the interogatives of the monologue and dialogue. For an effective emotional influx, you can put in all your individual strength. The intonation of the interrogative both adds to the emotional appeal and may also weaken the interogativeness of the statement. Besides, the article differenciates low and high tones, which correlates with differences in their discursive function. The lower contour of the interogative is often used for detailing information, for introducing new ideas, or for further developing of current topics. The rising contour is most often used for supplementary information. Special questions, as a rule, can use the lower tone. A rising tone of voice expresses friendliness, interest and appreciation to the addressee, whereas a falling tone - the indifference and finality. The author also considers such a specific component of prosody as colloquiality.

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 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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.296 · 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