Older adults’ refusal speech act in cognitive assessment: A multimodal pragmatic perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores how older adults with different cognitive abilities perform the refusal speech act in the cognitive assessment in the setting of memory clinics. The refusal speech act and its corresponding illocutionary force produced by nine Chinese older adults in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic was annotated and analyzed from a multimodal perspective. Overall, regardless of the older adults' cognitive ability, the most common discursive device to refuse is the demonstration of their inability to carry out or continue the cognitive task. Individuals with lower cognitive ability were found to perform the refusal illocutionary force (hereafter RIF) with higher frequency and degree. Additionally, under the pragmatic compensation mechanism, which is influenced by cognitive ability, multiple expression devices (including prosodic features and non-verbal acts) interact dynamically and synergistically to help older adults carry out the refusal behavior and to unfold older adults' intentional state and emotion as well. The findings indicate that both the degree and the frequency of performing the refusal speech act in the cognitive assessment are related to the cognitive ability of older adults.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".