MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380569741 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.249

The Prosody of Directive Speech Acts: Pragmastylistic Aspect (On the Material of the Modern German Language)

2022· article· en· W4380569741 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liudmila G. Karandeeva, Tatiana Gennadievna Stanchuliak, Svetlana V. Popova, V.S. Suyskaya, Irina Viktorovna Shvedova

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscourse Analysis and Cultural Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDirectiveGermanProsodyRealization (probability)LinguisticsSituational ethicsComputer sciencePsychologySpeech recognitionSocial psychologyMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article represents the results of a phonetic experiment devoted to the study of pragmatically, and the stylistically determined manifestation of directive speech acts in the modern German language. The experiment allowed establishing the prosodic invariant of the directive speech act and describing variant patterns realized in diverse situational conditions which demonstrated a different degree of categoricalness and revealed their differential character on the level of prosodic expressive means. The research showed that pragmatic identification and stylistic differentiation of directive speech acts is realized utilizing all prosodic parameters - pitch, intensity and tempo. The complex analysis of pitch, intensity and tempo characteristics specific for situational variants of the directive illocutive allowed defining the level of involvement of these prosodic means in the functional realization of directive speech impact.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Criminology and SociologySame topicDiscourse Analysis and Cultural CommunicationFrench-language works237,207